Prologue

序幕

After a bumpy flight, fifteen men dropped from the Montana sky. They weren’t skydivers. They were smokejumpers: elite wildland firefighters parachuting in to extinguish a forest fire started by lightning the day before. In a matter of minutes, they would be racing for their lives.

经过一段颠簸的飞行，十五名男子从蒙大拿的天空坠落。他们不是跳伞员，而是空降消防员：精英野外消防员跳伞灭火，扑灭前一天因雷击引发的森林大火。几分钟后，他们就要开始逃命了。

The smokejumpers landed near the top of Mann Gulch late on a scorching August afternoon in 1949. With the fire visible across the gulch, they made their way down the slope toward the Missouri River. Their plan was to dig a line in the soil around the fire to contain it and direct it toward an area where there wasn’t much to burn.

1949年8月一个炎热的下午，空降消防员们降落在曼恩峡谷（Mann Gulch）的山顶附近。峡谷对面的火势清晰可见，他们顺着山坡向密苏里河前进。他们的计划是在火势周围的土壤中挖一条防线，控制火势，并将火势引导到没有太多可燃物的地方。

After hiking about a quarter mile, the foreman, Wagner Dodge, saw that the fire had leapt across the gulch and was heading straight at them. The flames stretched as high as 30 feet in the air. Soon the fire would be blazing fast enough to cross the length of two football fields in less than a minute.

徒步走了大约四分之一英里后，工头瓦格纳·道奇发现大火已经越过峡谷，直冲他们而来。火焰高达30英尺（约9米）。很快，火势就会迅速蔓延，不到一分钟就能烧过两个足球场那么大。

By 5:45 p.m. it was clear that even containing the fire was off the table. Realizing it was time to shift gears from fight to flight, Dodge immediately turned the crew around to run back up the slope. The smokejumpers had to bolt up an extremely steep incline, through knee-high grass on rocky terrain. Over the next eight minutes they traveled nearly 500 yards, leaving the top of the ridge less than 200 yards away.

到下午5点45分，显然连控制火势都无计可施了。意识到是时候从战斗转为飞行了，道奇立即调转机组人员，跑回山坡。空降消防员们必须飞速爬上一个极其陡峭的斜坡，穿过齐膝深的岩石地带的杂草丛。在接下来的八分钟里，他们前进了近500码，距离山脊顶部不到200码。

With safety in sight but the fire swiftly advancing, Dodge did something that baffled his crew. Instead of trying to outrun the fire, he stopped and bent over. He took out a matchbook, started lighting matches, and threw them into the grass. “We thought he must have gone nuts,” one later recalled. “With the fire almost on our back, what the hell is the boss doing lighting another fire in front of us?” He thought to himself: That bastard Dodge is trying to burn me to death . It’s no surprise that the crew didn’t follow Dodge when he waved his arms toward his fire and yelled, “Up! Up this way!”

眼看安全在望，但火势却迅速蔓延，道奇的举动却让队员们大吃一惊。他没有试图逃离火场，而是停下来弯下腰。他掏出一本火柴盒，点燃火柴，然后把它们扔到草地上。“我们当时以为他疯了，”其中一人后来回忆道。“火都快烧到我们背上了，这老板干嘛还要在我们面前再点一把火？”他心想：道奇这个混蛋是想把我烧死。毫不奇怪，当道奇挥舞着手臂，大喊“上！往这边上！”时，队员们并没有跟着他。

What the smokejumpers didn’t realize was that Dodge had devised a survival strategy: he was building an escape fire. By burning the grass ahead of him, he cleared the area of fuel for the wildfire to feed on. He then poured water from his canteen onto his handkerchief, covered his mouth with it, and lay facedown in the charred area for the next fifteen minutes. As the wildfire raged directly above him, he survived in the oxygen close to the ground.

空降消防员们没有意识到，道奇已经想出了一个生存策略：他正在生火。他烧掉前方的草，清除了野火燃烧的区域。然后，他用水壶里的水倒在手帕上，捂住嘴，脸朝下躺在烧焦的地方，持续了15分钟。当野火在他头顶肆虐时，他靠着靠近地面的氧气活了下来。

Tragically, twelve of the smokejumpers perished. A pocket watch belonging to one of the victims was later found with the hands melted at 5:56 p.m.

不幸的是，12名空降消防员不幸遇难。其中一名遇难者的怀表后来被发现，指针已融化，时间是下午5点56分。

Why did only three of the smokejumpers survive? Physical fitness might have been a factor; the other two survivors managed to outrun the fire and reach the crest of the ridge. But Dodge prevailed because of his mental fitness.

为什么只有三名空降消防员幸存？体能或许是原因之一；另外两名幸存者设法逃离了火场，到达了山脊顶峰。但道奇凭借着良好的心理素质最终获胜。

When people reflect on what it takes to be mentally fit, the first idea that comes to mind is usually intelligence. The smarter you are, the more complex the problems you can solve—and the faster you can solve them. Intelligence is traditionally viewed as the ability to think and learn. Yet in a turbulent world, there’s another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn.

当人们思考如何保持心理健康时，首先想到的通常是智力。你越聪明，你能解决的问题就越复杂，而且解决的速度也越快。智力传统上被认为是思考和学习的能力。然而，在这个动荡的世界里，还有另一套认知技能可能更为重要：反思和忘却的能力。

Imagine that you’ve just finished taking a multiple-choice test, and you start to second-guess one of your answers. You have some extra time—should you stick with your first instinct or change it?

想象一下，你刚刚做完一场选择题考试，开始怀疑自己的一个答案。你还有一些空闲时间——你应该坚持自己的第一直觉，还是改变它？

About three quarters of students are convinced that revising their answer will hurt their score. Kaplan, the big test-prep company, once warned students to “ exercise great caution if you decide to change an answer. Experience indicates that many students who change answers change to the wrong answer.”

大约四分之三的学生认为修改答案会影响他们的分数。大型备考公司卡普兰（Kaplan）曾警告学生：“如果决定修改答案，一定要格外小心。经验表明，很多修改答案的学生最终都改成了错误的答案。”

With all due respect to the lessons of experience, I prefer the rigor of evidence. When a trio of psychologists conducted a comprehensive review of thirty-three studies, they found that in every one, the majority of answer revisions were from wrong to right. This phenomenon is known as the first-instinct fallacy.

尽管我尊重经验教训，但我更倾向于证据的严谨性。三位心理学家对33项研究进行了全面回顾，发现在每一项研究中，大多数答案的修改都是从错误到正确。这种现象被称为“第一直觉谬误”。

In one demonstration, psychologists counted eraser marks on the exams of more than 1,500 students in Illinois. Only a quarter of the changes were from right to wrong, while half were from wrong to right. I’ve seen it in my own classroom year after year: my students’ final exams have surprisingly few eraser marks, but those who do rethink their first answers rather than staying anchored to them end up improving their scores.

在一次演示中，心理学家统计了伊利诺伊州1500多名学生试卷上的橡皮擦痕迹。只有四分之一的修改是从正确改成错误的，而一半是从错误改成正确的。我年复一年地在自己的课堂上见证了这种情况：我的学生期末考试中橡皮擦痕迹出奇地少，但那些重新思考最初答案而不是固守原答案的学生最终提高了分数。

Of course, it’s possible that second answers aren’t inherently better; they’re only better because students are generally so reluctant to switch that they only make changes when they’re fairly confident. But recent studies point to a different explanation: it’s not so much changing your answer that improves your score as considering whether you should change it.

当然，第二个答案可能并非本质上更好；它们之所以更好，只是因为学生通常不太愿意改变答案，所以他们只有在相当有信心的时候才会做出改变。但最近的研究提出了不同的解释：与其说改变答案能提高你的分数，不如说是考虑是否应该改变答案。

We don’t just hesitate to rethink our answers. We hesitate at the very idea of rethinking. Take an experiment where hundreds of college students were randomly assigned to learn about the first-instinct fallacy. The speaker taught them about the value of changing their minds and gave them advice about when it made sense to do so. On their next two tests, they still weren’t any more likely to revise their answers.

我们不仅犹豫着是否要重新思考答案，甚至连重新思考的想法都犹豫不决。我们做了一个实验，数百名大学生被随机分配去学习“第一直觉谬误”。演讲者向他们讲述了改变想法的价值，并建议何时应该改变想法。在接下来的两次测试中，他们仍然没有更倾向于修改答案。

Part of the problem is cognitive laziness. Some psychologists point out that we’re mental misers: we often prefer the ease of hanging on to old views over the difficulty of grappling with new ones. Yet there are also deeper forces behind our resistance to rethinking. Questioning ourselves makes the world more unpredictable. It requires us to admit that the facts may have changed, that what was once right may now be wrong. Reconsidering something we believe deeply can threaten our identities, making it feel as if we’re losing a part of ourselves.

部分问题在于认知懒惰。一些心理学家指出，我们是精神上的吝啬鬼：我们常常宁愿轻易地坚持旧观点，也不愿费力地接受新观点。然而，我们抗拒反思的背后还有更深层次的力量。质疑自己让世界变得更加难以预测。它要求我们承认事实可能已经改变，曾经正确的东西现在可能已经错误。重新思考我们深信不疑的东西可能会威胁到我们的身份认同，让我们感觉好像正在失去自我的一部分。

Rethinking isn’t a struggle in every part of our lives. When it comes to our possessions, we update with fervor. We refresh our wardrobes when they go out of style and renovate our kitchens when they’re no longer in vogue. When it comes to our knowledge and opinions, though, we tend to stick to our guns. Psychologists call this seizing and freezing. We favor the comfort of conviction over the discomfort of doubt, and we let our beliefs get brittle long before our bones. We laugh at people who still use Windows 95, yet we still cling to opinions that we formed in 1995. We listen to views that make us feel good, instead of ideas that make us think hard.

反思并非在我们生活的方方面面都难以做到。说到我们的物品，我们会热情地更新。衣柜过时了，我们会更新；厨房不再流行了，我们会翻新。然而，说到我们的知识和观点，我们却倾向于固执己见。心理学家称之为“抓住不放，冻结不放”。我们更喜欢信念带来的舒适感，而不是怀疑带来的不适，我们的信念早在骨头变硬之前就变得脆弱。我们嘲笑那些还在用Windows 95的人，却又固执地坚持自己在1995年形成的观点。我们只听从那些让我们感觉良好的观点，而不是那些让我们认真思考的想法。

At some point, you’ve probably heard that if you drop a frog in a pot of scalding hot water, it will immediately leap out. But if you drop the frog in lukewarm water and gradually raise the temperature, the frog will die. It lacks the ability to rethink the situation, and doesn’t realize the threat until it’s too late.

你可能听说过，把一只青蛙扔进一锅滚烫的热水里，它会立刻跳出来。但如果你把它扔进温水中，然后逐渐升高水温，青蛙就会死掉。它缺乏重新思考的能力，往往等到为时已晚才意识到危险。

I did some research on this popular story recently and discovered a wrinkle: it isn’t true.

我最近对这个流行故事进行了一些研究，发现了一个问题：它不是真的。

Tossed into the scalding pot, the frog will get burned badly and may or may not escape. The frog is actually better off in the slow-boiling pot: it will leap out as soon as the water starts to get uncomfortably warm.

把青蛙扔进滚烫的锅里，它会被烫伤，而且可能逃脱，也可能一命呜呼。其实，青蛙在慢煮的锅里会更好：只要水温开始变得难受，它就会跳出来。

It’s not the frogs who fail to reevaluate. It’s us. Once we hear the story and accept it as true, we rarely bother to question it.

不是青蛙没有重新评估，而是我们自己。一旦我们听到这个故事并接受它是真的，我们就很少会去质疑它。

As the Mann Gulch wildfire raced toward them, the smokejumpers had a decision to make. In an ideal world, they would have had enough time to pause, analyze the situation, and evaluate their options. With the fire raging less than 100 yards behind, there was no chance to stop and think. “ On a big fire there is no time and no tree under whose shade the boss and the crew can sit and have a Platonic dialogue about a blowup,” scholar and former firefighter Norman Maclean wrote in Young Men and Fire , his award-winning chronicle of the disaster. “If Socrates had been foreman on the Mann Gulch fire, he and his crew would have been cremated while they were sitting there considering it.”

随着曼恩峡谷野火席卷而来，空降消防员们必须做出抉择。理想情况下，他们应该有足够的时间停下来，分析形势，评估各种选择。然而，大火在他们身后不到100码的地方肆虐，他们根本没有时间停下来思考。“在一场大火中，没有时间，也没有树荫，让老板和队员们可以坐在一起，就爆炸问题进行柏拉图式的对话，”学者、前消防员诺曼·麦克林在他获奖的灾难记录《年轻人与火》中写道。“如果苏格拉底是曼恩峡谷火灾的领班，他和他的队员们坐在那里思考的时候，就会被烧死。”

Dodge didn’t survive as a result of thinking slower. He made it out alive thanks to his ability to rethink the situation faster. Twelve smokejumpers paid the ultimate price because Dodge’s behavior didn’t make sense to them. They couldn’t rethink their assumptions in time.

道奇并非因为思维迟缓而幸存。他之所以能活下来，是因为他能够更快地重新思考情况。十二名空降消防员付出了生命的代价，因为他们无法理解道奇的行为。他们没能及时重新思考自己的假设。

Under acute stress, people typically revert to their automatic, well-learned responses. That’s evolutionarily adaptive—as long as you find yourself in the same kind of environment in which those reactions were necessary. If you’re a smokejumper, your well-learned response is to put out a fire, not start another one. If you’re fleeing for your life, your well-learned response is to run away from the fire, not toward it. In normal circumstances, those instincts might save your life. Dodge survived Mann Gulch because he swiftly overrode both of those responses.

在急性压力下，人们通常会恢复到他们习以为常的自动反应。这是进化的适应性——只要你身处需要这些反应的同一环境中。如果你是一名空降消防员，你习以为常的反应是扑灭火灾，而不是引发另一场火灾。如果你正在逃命，你习以为常的反应是远离火场，而不是冲向火场。在正常情况下，这些本能或许能救你一命。道奇之所以能在曼恩峡谷幸存下来，就是因为他迅速地克制住了这两种反应。

No one had taught Dodge to build an escape fire. He hadn’t even heard of the concept; it was pure improvisation. Later, the other two survivors testified under oath that nothing resembling an escape fire was covered in their training. Many experts had spent their entire careers studying wildfires without realizing it was possible to stay alive by burning a hole through the blaze.

没人教过道奇如何生火逃生。他甚至都没听说过这个概念；纯粹是即兴发挥。后来，另外两名幸存者作证说，他们的训练中根本没有涉及任何类似生火逃生的内容。许多专家毕生致力于研究野火，却从未意识到在火中烧出一个洞也能活下来。

When I tell people about Dodge’s escape, they usually marvel at his resourcefulness under pressure. That was genius! Their astonishment quickly melts into dejection as they conclude that this kind of eureka moment is out of reach for mere mortals. I got stumped by my fourth grader’s math homework. Yet most acts of rethinking don’t require any special skill or ingenuity.

当我告诉别人道奇逃脱的故事时，他们通常会惊叹于他在重压之下的足智多谋。真是天才！他们的惊讶很快化为沮丧，因为他们认为这种顿悟时刻是凡人无法企及的。我四年级孩子的数学作业也难倒了我。然而，大多数反思并不需要任何特殊技能或智慧。

Moments earlier at Mann Gulch, the smokejumpers missed another opportunity to think again—and that one was right at their fingertips. Just before Dodge started tossing matches into the grass, he ordered his crew to drop their heavy equipment. They had spent the past eight minutes racing uphill while still carrying axes, saws, shovels, and 20-pound packs.

就在刚才，在曼恩峡谷，空降消防员们又一次错失了重新思考的机会——而这个机会就在他们触手可及的地方。就在道奇开始往草丛里扔火柴之前，他命令队员们放下沉重的装备。在过去的八分钟里，他们一直扛着斧头、锯子、铲子和20磅重的背包，一路向上飞奔。

If you’re running for your life, it might seem obvious that your first move would be to drop anything that might slow you down. For firefighters, though, tools are essential to doing their jobs. Carrying and taking care of equipment is deeply ingrained in their training and experience. It wasn’t until Dodge gave his order that most of the smokejumpers set down their tools—and even then, one firefighter hung on to his shovel until a colleague took it out of his hands. If the crew had abandoned their tools sooner, would it have been enough to save them?

如果你正在逃命，那么第一步显然是扔掉任何可能拖慢你速度的东西。然而，对于消防员来说，工具是完成工作的关键。携带和保养设备是他们训练和经验中根深蒂固的原则。直到道奇下令，大多数空降消防员才放下工具——即便如此，一名消防员仍然紧紧抓住他的铲子，直到同事从他手中拿走。如果队员们早点扔掉工具，他们还能活下来吗？

We’ll never know for certain, but Mann Gulch wasn’t an isolated incident. Between 1990 and 1995 alone, a total of twenty-three wildland firefighters perished trying to outrace fires uphill even though dropping their heavy equipment could have made the difference between life and death. In 1994, on Storm King Mountain in Colorado, high winds caused a fire to explode across a gulch. Running uphill on rocky ground with safety in view just 200 feet away, fourteen smokejumpers and wildland firefighters—four women, ten men—lost their lives.

我们永远无法确定，但曼恩峡谷事件并非孤例。仅在1990年至1995年间，共有23名野外消防员在试图赶上山坡上的火势时牺牲，尽管他们的重型设备掉落下来可能会造成生死攸关的后果。1994年，在科罗拉多州的风暴王山，强风导致大火蔓延到峡谷的另一侧。在岩石地面上奔跑上坡，而安全距离仅200英尺，十四名空降消防员和野外消防员（四名女性，十名男性）牺牲了。

Later, investigators calculated that without their tools and backpacks, the crew could have moved 15 to 20 percent faster. “ Most would have lived had they simply dropped their gear and run for safety,” one expert wrote. Had they “ dropped their packs and tools,” the U.S. Forest Service concurred, “the firefighters would have reached the top of the ridge before the fire.”

后来，调查人员计算出，如果没有工具和背包，消防队员的行动速度可以提高15%到20%。一位专家写道：“如果他们只是扔下装备，逃命，大多数人都能活下来。”美国林务局也表示，如果他们“扔下背包和工具”，“消防员就能在火灾发生前到达山脊顶部。”

It’s reasonable to assume that at first the crew might have been running on autopilot, not even aware that they were still carrying their packs and tools. “About three hundred yards up the hill,” one of the Colorado survivors testified, “I then realized I still had my saw over my shoulder!” Even after making the wise decision to ditch the 25-pound chainsaw, he wasted valuable time: “I irrationally started looking for a place to put it down where it wouldn’t get burned. . . . I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe I’m putting down my saw.’” One of the victims was found wearing his backpack, still clutching the handle of his chainsaw. Why would so many firefighters cling to a set of tools even though letting go might save their lives?

可以合理地推测，起初消防队员可能只是在“自动驾驶”状态，甚至没有意识到自己还背着背包和工具。“爬上山大概三百码，”一位科罗拉多州的幸存者作证说，“我才意识到我的锯子还扛在肩上！”即使在做出了扔掉25磅重的电锯的明智决定后，他仍然浪费了宝贵的时间：“我突然开始想找个地方把它放下来，以免它被烧坏……我记得当时心想，‘真不敢相信我竟然把锯子放下了。’”其中一名遇难者被发现时背着背包，手里还紧紧抓着电锯的把手。为什么这么多消防员明明放开工具就能救命，却还要紧紧抓住它不放呢？

If you’re a firefighter, dropping your tools doesn’t just require you to unlearn habits and disregard instincts. Discarding your equipment means admitting failure and shedding part of your identity. You have to rethink your goal in your job—and your role in life. “Fires are not fought with bodies and bare hands, they are fought with tools that are often distinctive trademarks of firefighters,” organizational psychologist Karl Weick explains: “They are the firefighter’s reason for being deployed in the first place. . . . Dropping one’s tools creates an existential crisis. Without my tools, who am I?”

如果你是一名消防员，丢掉工具不仅仅意味着你忘掉习惯、无视本能。丢弃装备意味着承认失败，并放弃部分自我认同。你必须重新思考你的工作目标——以及你的人生角色。“灭火不是靠身体和赤手空拳，而是靠工具，而这些工具往往是消防员的标志性特征，”组织心理学家卡尔·韦克解释说：“这正是消防员被派往现场的初衷……丢掉工具会引发生存危机。没有了工具，我又是谁？”

Wildland fires are relatively rare. Most of our lives don’t depend on split-second decisions that force us to reimagine our tools as a source of danger and a fire as a path to safety. Yet the challenge of rethinking assumptions is surprisingly common—maybe even common to all humans.

野火相对罕见。我们大多数人的生活并不依赖于瞬间做出的决定，这些决定迫使我们重新思考工具是危险之源，将火灾视为通往安全的途径。然而，重新思考这些假设的挑战却出奇地普遍——甚至可能是所有人类的共同挑战。

We all make the same kind of mistakes as smokejumpers and firefighters, but the consequences are less dire and therefore often go unnoticed. Our ways of thinking become habits that can weigh us down, and we don’t bother to question them until it’s too late. Expecting your squeaky brakes to keep working until they finally fail on the freeway. Believing the stock market will keep going up after analysts warn of an impending real estate bubble. Assuming your marriage is fine despite your partner’s increasing emotional distance. Feeling secure in your job even though some of your colleagues have been laid off.

我们都会犯和空降消防员、消防员一样的错误，但后果没那么严重，因此常常被忽视。我们的思维方式会变成习惯，拖累我们，而我们往往懒得去反思，直到为时已晚。我们总是期待着吱吱作响的刹车能一直正常工作，直到它最终在高速公路上失灵。在分析师警告房地产泡沫即将出现后，我们却依然相信股市会继续上涨。我们总是以为婚姻安好，尽管伴侣的感情距离越来越远。我们总是觉得工作很安稳，尽管有些同事已经被解雇了。

This book is about the value of rethinking. It’s about adopting the kind of mental flexibility that saved Wagner Dodge’s life. It’s also about succeeding where he failed: encouraging that same agility in others.

这本书探讨的是反思的价值。它探讨的是如何运用那种曾拯救过瓦格纳·道奇生命的思维灵活性。它还探讨的是如何在他失败的地方取得成功：鼓励他人也拥有同样的敏捷性。

You may not carry an ax or a shovel, but you do have some cognitive tools that you use regularly. They might be things you know, assumptions you make, or opinions you hold. Some of them aren’t just part of your job—they’re part of your sense of self.

你或许没有随身携带斧头或铲子，但你确实拥有一些经常使用的认知工具。它们可能是你所了解的事物、你做出的假设或你持有的观点。其中一些不仅仅是你工作的一部分，更是你自我意识的一部分。

Consider a group of students who built what has been called Harvard’s first online social network. Before they arrived at college, they had already connected more than an eighth of the entering freshman class in an “e-group.” But once they got to Cambridge, they abandoned the network and shut it down. Five years later Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook on the same campus.

想想一群学生，他们创建了哈佛大学首个在线社交网络。在他们入学前，他们已经通过一个“电子小组”联系上了超过八分之一的新生。但到了剑桥后，他们却放弃了这个网络，并将其关闭。五年后，马克·扎克伯格在同一校园创办了Facebook。

From time to time, the students who created the original e-group have felt some pangs of regret. I know, because I was one of the cofounders of that group.

最初创建这个电子小组的学生们时不时会感到些许后悔。我深有体会，因为我就是这个小组的联合创始人之一。

Let’s be clear: I never would have had the vision for what Facebook became. In hindsight, though, my friends and I clearly missed a series of chances for rethinking the potential of our platform. Our first instinct was to use the e-group to make new friends for ourselves; we didn’t consider whether it would be of interest to students at other schools or in life beyond school. Our well-learned habit was to use online tools to connect with people far away; once we lived within walking distance on the same campus, we figured we no longer needed the e-group. Although one of the cofounders was studying computer science and another early member had already founded a successful tech startup, we made the flawed assumption that an online social network was a passing hobby, not a huge part of the future of the internet. Since I didn’t know how to code, I didn’t have the tools to build something more sophisticated. Launching a company wasn’t part of my identity anyway: I saw myself as a college freshman, not a budding entrepreneur.

先说清楚：我根本就不会有Facebook发展成现在这个样子的愿景。但事后看来，我和我的朋友们显然错过了一系列重新思考我们平台潜力的机会。我们最初的反应是利用网络小组结识新朋友；我们没有考虑其他学校的学生或校外生活是否会对此感兴趣。我们养成了使用在线工具与远方朋友联系的习惯；当我们住到同一个校园，步行可达时，我们意识到不再需要网络小组了。尽管其中一位联合创始人正在学习计算机科学，另一位早期成员已经创办了一家成功的科技初创公司，但我们错误地认为在线社交网络只是一时的爱好，并非互联网未来的重要组成部分。由于我不会编程，所以我没有工具来构建更复杂的东西。创办公司本来就不是我身份的一部分：我把自己视为一名大学新生，而不是一个崭露头角的企业家。

Since then, rethinking has become central to my sense of self. I’m a psychologist but I’m not a fan of Freud, I don’t have a couch in my office, and I don’t do therapy. As an organizational psychologist at Wharton, I’ve spent the past fifteen years researching and teaching evidence-based management. As an entrepreneur of data and ideas, I’ve been called by organizations like Google, Pixar, the NBA, and the Gates Foundation to help them reexamine how they design meaningful jobs, build creative teams, and shape collaborative cultures. My job is to think again about how we work, lead, and live—and enable others to do the same.

从那时起，反思就成了我自我认知的核心。我是一名心理学家，但我并非弗洛伊德的粉丝，我的办公室里没有沙发，也不做心理治疗。作为沃顿商学院的组织心理学家，过去十五年我一直致力于研究和教授循证管理。作为一名数据和创意企业家，我曾受谷歌、皮克斯、NBA和盖茨基金会等机构的邀请，帮助他们重新审视如何设计有意义的工作、打造富有创造力的团队以及塑造协作文化。我的工作是重新思考我们如何工作、领导和生活——并帮助他人也这样做。

I can’t think of a more vital time for rethinking. As the coronavirus pandemic unfolded, many leaders around the world were slow to rethink their assumptions—first that the virus wouldn’t affect their countries, next that it would be no deadlier than the flu, and then that it could only be transmitted by people with visible symptoms. The cost in human life is still being tallied.

我想不出比这更值得反思的时刻了。随着新冠病毒疫情的蔓延，世界各地的许多领导人迟迟没有重新思考他们的假设——首先是认为这种病毒不会影响他们的国家，其次是认为它的致命性不会比流感更高，最后是认为它只能通过有明显症状的人传播。这场疫情造成的生命损失仍在统计中。

In the past year we’ve all had to put our mental pliability to the test. We’ve been forced to question assumptions that we had long taken for granted: That it’s safe to go to the hospital, eat in a restaurant, and hug our parents or grandparents. That live sports will always be on TV and most of us will never have to work remotely or homeschool our kids. That we can get toilet paper and hand sanitizer whenever we need them.

在过去的一年里，我们所有人都不得不考验自己的心理承受能力。我们被迫质疑那些长期以来习以为常的假设：去医院、在餐厅吃饭、拥抱父母或祖父母都是安全的。体育赛事永远会在电视上直播，我们大多数人永远不需要远程办公或在家教育孩子。我们随时可以拿到卫生纸和洗手液。

In the midst of the pandemic, multiple acts of police brutality led many people to rethink their views on racial injustice and their roles in fighting it. The senseless deaths of three Black citizens—George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery—left millions of white people realizing that just as sexism is not only a women’s issue, racism is not only an issue for people of color. As waves of protest swept the nation, across the political spectrum, support for the Black Lives Matter movement climbed nearly as much in the span of two weeks as it had in the previous two years. Many of those who had long been unwilling or unable to acknowledge it quickly came to grips with the harsh reality of systemic racism that still pervades America. Many of those who had long been silent came to reckon with their responsibility to become antiracists and act against prejudice.

疫情期间，多起警察暴力执法事件促使许多人重新思考他们对种族不平等的看法以及他们在抗击种族不平等中的作用。乔治·弗洛伊德、布伦娜·泰勒和阿莫德·阿伯里三位黑人公民的无谓死亡，让数百万白人意识到，正如性别歧视不仅仅是女性的问题一样，种族主义也不仅仅是有色人种的问题。随着抗议浪潮席卷美国，跨越政治光谱，“黑人的命也是命”运动的支持率在两周内几乎与前两年持平。许多长期以来不愿或无法承认系统性种族主义依然在美国普遍存在的严酷现实。许多长期以来保持沉默的人开始意识到自己的责任，成为反种族主义者，采取行动反对偏见。

Despite these shared experiences, we live in an increasingly divisive time. For some people a single mention of kneeling during the national anthem is enough to end a friendship. For others a single ballot at a voting booth is enough to end a marriage. Calcified ideologies are tearing American culture apart. Even our great governing document, the U.S. Constitution, allows for amendments. What if we were quicker to make amendments to our own mental constitutions?

尽管有着这些共同的经历，我们却生活在一个日益分裂的时代。对某些人来说，仅仅在奏国歌时提到下跪就足以结束一段友谊。对另一些人来说，在投票站投一次票就足以结束一段婚姻。僵化的意识形态正在撕裂美国文化。即使是我们伟大的执政文献——美国宪法——也允许修改。如果我们能更快地修正自己的精神构成，情况会怎样？

My aim in this book is to explore how rethinking happens. I sought out the most compelling evidence and some of the world’s most skilled rethinkers. The first section focuses on opening our own minds. You’ll find out why a forward-thinking entrepreneur got trapped in the past, why a long-shot candidate for public office came to see impostor syndrome as an advantage, how a Nobel Prize–winning scientist embraces the joy of being wrong, how the world’s best forecasters update their views, and how an Oscar-winning filmmaker has productive fights.

我写这本书的目的是探索反思是如何发生的。我寻找了最令人信服的证据，并采访了一些世界上最善于反思的人。第一部分着眼于开拓我们的思维。你会发现一位具有前瞻性思维的企业家为何会陷入过去，一位原本机会渺茫的公职候选人为何会将冒名顶替综合症视为优势，一位诺贝尔奖得主科学家如何享受犯错的乐趣，世界上最优秀的预测者如何更新他们的观点，以及一位奥斯卡获奖电影制片人如何进行卓有成效的抗争。

The second section examines how we can encourage other people to think again. You’ll learn how an international debate champion wins arguments and a Black musician persuades white supremacists to abandon hate. You’ll discover how a special kind of listening helped a doctor open parents’ minds about vaccines, and helped a legislator convince a Ugandan warlord to join her in peace talks. And if you’re a Yankees fan, I’m going to see if I can convince you to root for the Red Sox.

第二部分探讨我们如何鼓励他人重新思考。你将了解一位国际辩论冠军如何赢得辩论，以及一位黑人音乐家如何说服白人至上主义者放弃仇恨。你还将发现一种特殊的倾听方式如何帮助一位医生开阔了家长们对疫苗的看法，以及如何帮助一位立法者说服一位乌干达军阀与她一起参与和平谈判。如果你是洋基队的球迷，我倒要看看能否说服你支持红袜队。

The third section is about how we can create communities of lifelong learners. In social life, a lab that specializes in difficult conversations will shed light on how we can communicate better about polarizing issues like abortion and climate change. In schools, you’ll find out how educators teach kids to think again by treating classrooms like museums, approaching projects like carpenters, and rewriting time-honored textbooks. At work, you’ll explore how to build learning cultures with the first Hispanic woman in space, who took the reins at NASA to prevent accidents after space shuttle Columbia disintegrated. I close by reflecting on the importance of reconsidering our best-laid plans.

第三部分探讨如何创建终身学习者社区。在社交生活中，一个专门研究艰难对话的实验室将揭示如何更好地就堕胎和气候变化等两极分化问题进行沟通。在学校，你将了解教育工作者如何通过将教室视为博物馆、像木工一样处理项目以及改写历史悠久的教科书来教导孩子们重新思考。在工作中，你将与第一位进入太空的西班牙裔女性一起探索如何建立学习文化。在哥伦比亚号航天飞机解体后，她接任了美国国家航空航天局（NASA）的领导，以防止事故发生。最后，我将反思重新审视我们精心制定的计划的重要性。

It’s a lesson that firefighters have learned the hard way. In the heat of the moment, Wagner Dodge’s impulse to drop his heavy tools and take shelter in a fire of his own making made the difference between life and death. But his inventiveness wouldn’t have even been necessary if not for a deeper, more systemic failure to think again. The greatest tragedy of Mann Gulch is that a dozen smokejumpers died fighting a fire that never needed to be fought.

这是消防员们从惨痛经历中吸取的教训。在危急时刻，瓦格纳·道奇一时冲动，扔下沉重的工具，躲进了自己制造的火灾中，结果却生死攸关。但如果不是因为更深层次、更系统性的反思失误，他的创造力根本不值一提。曼恩峡谷最大的悲剧，是十几名空降消防员在扑灭一场根本不需要扑灭的大火时牺牲了。

As early as the 1880s, scientists had begun highlighting the important role that wildfires play in the life cycles of forests. Fires remove dead matter, send nutrients into the soil, and clear a path for sunlight. When fires are suppressed, forests are left too dense. The accumulation of brush, dry leaves, and twigs becomes fuel for more explosive wildfires.

早在19世纪80年代，科学家们就开始强调野火在森林生命周期中扮演的重要角色。火灾清除了死物，将养分输送到土壤中，并为阳光开辟了道路。当火势得到抑制时，森林就会变得过于茂密。堆积的灌木、干树叶和树枝会成为更具爆发力的野火的燃料。

Yet it wasn’t until 1978 that the U.S. Forest Service put an end to its policy that every fire spotted should be extinguished by 10:00 a.m. the following day. The Mann Gulch wildfire took place in a remote area where human lives were not at risk. The smokejumpers were called in anyway because no one in their community, their organization, or their profession had done enough to question the assumption that wildfires should not be allowed to run their course.

然而，直到1978年，美国林务局才废除了其“所有发现的火灾必须在次日上午10点前扑灭”的政策。曼恩峡谷的野火发生在一个偏远地区，那里没有人类生命受到威胁。空降消防员们还是被召集了过来，因为他们的社区、组织或行业中没有人做出足够的努力来质疑“野火不应该任其发展”这一假设。

This book is an invitation to let go of knowledge and opinions that are no longer serving you well, and to anchor your sense of self in flexibility rather than consistency. If you can master the art of rethinking, I believe you’ll be better positioned for success at work and happiness in life. Thinking again can help you generate new solutions to old problems and revisit old solutions to new problems. It’s a path to learning more from the people around you and living with fewer regrets. A hallmark of wisdom is knowing when it’s time to abandon some of your most treasured tools—and some of the most cherished parts of your identity.

这本书邀请你放下那些不再对你有益的知识和观点，并将你的自我意识锚定在灵活性而非一致性上。如果你能掌握反思的艺术，我相信你将更有能力在工作中取得成功，在生活中获得幸福。重新思考可以帮助你为旧问题找到新的解决方案，并重新审视新问题的旧解决方案。这是一条从周围的人身上学到更多、减少遗憾的途径。智慧的标志之一，就是知道何时该放弃你最珍贵的工具——以及你身份中最珍视的部分。

PART I

第一部分

Individual Rethinking

个人反思

Updating Our Own Views

更新我们自己的观点

CHAPTER 1 第一章

A Preacher, a Prosecutor, a Politician, and a Scientist Walk into Your Mind

一位传教士、一位检察官、一位政客和一位科学家走进你的大脑

Progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

—George Bernard Shaw

没有改变，就不可能有进步；不能改变想法的人，就不可能改变任何事情。——萧伯纳

You probably don’t recognize his name, but Mike Lazaridis has had a defining impact on your life. From an early age, it was clear that Mike was something of an electronics wizard. By the time he turned four, he was building his own record player out of Legos and rubber bands. In high school, when his teachers had broken TVs, they called Mike to fix them. In his spare time, he built a computer and designed a better buzzer for high school quiz-bowl teams, which ended up paying for his first year of college. Just months before finishing his electrical engineering degree, Mike did what so many great entrepreneurs of his era would do: he dropped out of college. It was time for this son of immigrants to make his mark on the world.

你可能不认识迈克·拉扎里迪斯，但他的名字对你的生活产生了决定性的影响。从很小的时候起，迈克就展现出他对电子的天赋。四岁时，他就开始用乐高积木和橡皮筋自制唱片机。高中时，老师们弄坏了电视机，就叫迈克去修。闲暇时，他组装了一台电脑，还为高中智力竞赛队设计了一款更好的蜂鸣器，这笔钱最终支付了他大学第一年的学费。就在获得电气工程学位的几个月前，迈克做了和他那个时代许多伟大企业家一样的事情：他从大学辍学了。这个移民之子是时候在世界上留下自己的印记了。

Mike’s first success came when he patented a device for reading the bar codes on movie film, which was so useful in Hollywood that it won an Emmy and an Oscar for technical achievement. That was small potatoes compared to his next big invention, which made his firm the fastest-growing company on the planet. Mike’s flagship device quickly attracted a cult following, with loyal customers ranging from Bill Gates to Christina Aguilera. “It’s literally changed my life,” Oprah Winfrey gushed. “I cannot live without this.” When he arrived at the White House, President Obama refused to relinquish his to the Secret Service.

迈克的首个成功是他申请了一种读取电影胶片条形码的设备的专利。这款设备在好莱坞大有用武之地，并因此获得了艾美奖和奥斯卡技术成就奖。但与他接下来的重大发明相比，这不过是九牛一毛。他的下一个重大发明使他的公司成为全球发展最快的公司。迈克的旗舰设备迅速吸引了一批狂热追随者，从比尔·盖茨到克里斯蒂娜·阿奎莱拉，都有忠实的客户。“它真的改变了我的生活，”奥普拉·温弗瑞感叹道，“我的生活不能没有它。”奥巴马总统入主白宫后，拒绝将他的设备交给特勤局。

Mike Lazaridis dreamed up the idea for the BlackBerry as a wireless communication device for sending and receiving emails. As of the summer of 2009, it accounted for nearly half of the U.S. smartphone market. By 2014, its market share had plummeted to less than 1 percent.

迈克·拉扎里迪斯（Mike Lazaridis）最初构思黑莓手机，旨在将其打造成一款用于收发电子邮件的无线通信设备。截至2009年夏季，黑莓手机占据了美国智能手机市场近一半的份额。但到了2014年，其市场份额已暴跌至不足1%。

When a company takes a nosedive like that, we can never pinpoint a single cause of its downfall, so we tend to anthropomorphize it: BlackBerry failed to adapt. Yet adapting to a changing environment isn’t something a company does—it’s something people do in the multitude of decisions they make every day. As the cofounder, president, and co-CEO, Mike was in charge of all the technical and product decisions on the BlackBerry. Although his thinking may have been the spark that ignited the smartphone revolution, his struggles with rethinking ended up sucking the oxygen out of his company and virtually extinguishing his invention. Where did he go wrong?

当一家公司遭遇如此严重的滑坡时，我们永远无法准确找出其衰败的单一原因，因此我们倾向于将其拟人化：黑莓未能适应。然而，适应不断变化的环境并非一家公司所能做到的，而是人们在日常众多决策中所做的。作为联合创始人、总裁兼联合首席执行官，迈克负责黑莓的所有技术和产品决策。尽管他的思维或许是点燃智能手机革命的火花，但他在反思方面的挣扎最终耗尽了公司的活力，几乎扼杀了他的发明。他错在哪里？

Most of us take pride in our knowledge and expertise, and in staying true to our beliefs and opinions. That makes sense in a stable world, where we get rewarded for having conviction in our ideas. The problem is that we live in a rapidly changing world, where we need to spend as much time rethinking as we do thinking.

我们大多数人都以自己的知识和专业技能以及坚守自己的信念和观点为荣。这在一个稳定的世界里合情合理，因为我们相信自己的想法会得到回报。问题在于，我们生活在一个瞬息万变的世界，我们需要花费与思考同样多的时间去反思。

Rethinking is a skill set, but it’s also a mindset. We already have many of the mental tools we need. We just have to remember to get them out of the shed and remove the rust.

反思是一种技能，也是一种思维方式。我们已经拥有了许多必要的思维工具。我们只需要记住，把它们从棚子里拿出来，清除锈迹。

SECOND THOUGHTS

重新思考

With advances in access to information and technology, knowledge isn’t just increasing. It’s increasing at an increasing rate. In 2011, you consumed about five times as much information per day as you would have just a quarter century earlier. As of 1950, it took about fifty years for knowledge in medicine to double. By 1980, medical knowledge was doubling every seven years, and by 2010, it was doubling in half that time. The accelerating pace of change means that we need to question our beliefs more readily than ever before.

随着信息和技术获取途径的进步，知识不仅在增长，而且增长速度越来越快。2011年，人们每天消耗的信息量大约是25年前的五倍。截至1950年，医学知识翻一番需要大约50年时间。到1980年，医学知识每7年翻一番，而到2010年，翻一番所需的时间仅为70年的一半。变革步伐的加快意味着我们需要比以往任何时候都更积极地质疑自己的信念。

This is not an easy task. As we sit with our beliefs, they tend to become more extreme and more entrenched. I’m still struggling to accept that Pluto may not be a planet. In education, after revelations in history and revolutions in science, it often takes years for a curriculum to be updated and textbooks to be revised. Researchers have recently discovered that we need to rethink widely accepted assumptions about such subjects as Cleopatra’s roots (her father was Greek, not Egyptian, and her mother’s identity is unknown); the appearance of dinosaurs (paleontologists now think some tyrannosaurs had colorful feathers on their backs); and what’s required for sight (blind people have actually trained themselves to “see”— sound waves can activate the visual cortex and create representations in the mind’s eye, much like how echolocation helps bats navigate in the dark). * Vintage records, classic cars, and antique clocks might be valuable collectibles, but outdated facts are mental fossils that are best abandoned.

这并非易事。我们越是固执己见，这些信念就越容易变得更加极端和根深蒂固。我仍然难以接受冥王星可能不是行星。在教育领域，历史的真相被揭露和科学的革命之后，课程的更新和教科书的修订往往需要数年时间。研究人员最近发现，我们需要重新思考一些被广泛接受的假设，例如克利奥帕特拉的根源（她的父亲是希腊人，而不是埃及人，而她母亲的身份不明）；恐龙的出现（古生物学家现在认为一些霸王龙背上有五颜六色的羽毛）；以及视觉的必要条件（盲人实际上已经训练自己“看”——声波可以激活视觉皮层，并在脑海中形成影像，就像回声定位帮助蝙蝠在黑暗中导航一样）。* 复古唱片、经典汽车和古董钟表或许是珍贵的收藏品，但过时的事实则是精神化石，最好还是抛弃。

We’re swift to recognize when other people need to think again. We question the judgment of experts whenever we seek out a second opinion on a medical diagnosis. Unfortunately, when it comes to our own knowledge and opinions, we often favor feeling right over being right. In everyday life, we make many diagnoses of our own, ranging from whom we hire to whom we marry. We need to develop the habit of forming our own second opinions.

我们很快就能察觉到别人何时需要重新思考。每当我们对某个医疗诊断寻求第二意见时，我们都会质疑专家的判断。不幸的是，当涉及到我们自己的知识和观点时，我们常常倾向于感觉正确，而不是坚持自己的正确性。在日常生活中，我们自己会做出许多诊断，从雇佣谁到与谁结婚。我们需要养成形成自己的第二意见的习惯。

Imagine you have a family friend who’s a financial adviser, and he recommends investing in a retirement fund that isn’t in your employer’s plan. You have another friend who’s fairly knowledgeable about investing, and he tells you that this fund is risky. What would you do?

假设你家里有一位朋友是财务顾问，他建议你投资一笔不在你雇主计划内的退休基金。你还有一位朋友对投资颇有了解，他告诉你这笔基金有风险。你会怎么做？

When a man named Stephen Greenspan found himself in that situation, he decided to weigh his skeptical friend’s warning against the data available. His sister had been investing in the fund for several years, and she was pleased with the results. A number of her friends had been, too; although the returns weren’t extraordinary, they were consistently in the double digits. The financial adviser was enough of a believer that he had invested his own money in the fund. Armed with that information, Greenspan decided to go forward. He made a bold move, investing nearly a third of his retirement savings in the fund. Before long, he learned that his portfolio had grown by 25 percent.

一位名叫斯蒂芬·格林斯潘的男子发现自己身处困境，决定将他那位持怀疑态度的朋友的警告与现有数据进行权衡。他的妹妹已经投资该基金好几年了，对结果很满意。她的一些朋友也一样；虽然回报率不算特别高，但也一直保持在两位数。这位财务顾问坚信他把自家的钱投资进了这只基金。有了这些信息，格林斯潘决定继续投资。他大胆一举，将近三分之一的退休储蓄投资于该基金。不久之后，他发现自己的投资组合增长了25%。

Then he lost it all overnight when the fund collapsed. It was the Ponzi scheme managed by Bernie Madoff.

后来，基金倒闭了，他一夜之间失去了所有财富。这就是伯纳德·麦道夫策划的庞氏骗局。

Two decades ago my colleague Phil Tetlock discovered something peculiar. As we think and talk, we often slip into the mindsets of three different professions: preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. In each of these modes, we take on a particular identity and use a distinct set of tools. We go into preacher mode when our sacred beliefs are in jeopardy: we deliver sermons to protect and promote our ideals. We enter prosecutor mode when we recognize flaws in other people’s reasoning: we marshal arguments to prove them wrong and win our case. We shift into politician mode when we’re seeking to win over an audience: we campaign and lobby for the approval of our constituents. The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that we’re right, prosecuting others who are wrong, and politicking for support that we don’t bother to rethink our own views.

二十年前，我的同事菲尔·泰特洛克（Phil Tetlock）发现了一些奇怪的现象。当我们思考和交谈时，我们常常会陷入三种不同职业的思维模式：传教士、检察官和政客。在每种模式中，我们都呈现出特定的身份，并使用一套独特的工具。当我们神圣的信仰受到威胁时，我们会进入传教士模式：我们布道是为了捍卫和宣扬我们的理想。当我们意识到他人推理中的缺陷时，我们会进入检察官模式：我们会组织论证来证明他们的错误并赢得我们的诉讼。当我们试图赢得听众时，我们会转变为政客模式：我们会开展竞选和游说活动以争取选民的支持。风险在于，我们过于沉迷于宣扬自己正确、起诉他人错误以及通过政治手段获取支持，以至于懒得反思自己的观点。

When Stephen Greenspan and his sister made the choice to invest with Bernie Madoff, it wasn’t because they relied on just one of those mental tools. All three modes together contributed to their ill-fated decision. When his sister told him about the money she and her friends had made, she was preaching about the merits of the fund. Her confidence led Greenspan to prosecute the friend who warned him against investing, deeming the friend guilty of “knee-jerk cynicism.” Greenspan was in politician mode when he let his desire for approval sway him toward a yes—the financial adviser was a family friend whom he liked and wanted to please.

当史蒂芬·格林斯潘和他的妹妹决定与伯尼·麦道夫投资时，并非因为他们仅仅依赖其中一种思维模式。三种思维模式共同导致了他们这个注定失败的决定。当妹妹告诉他她和朋友们赚到的钱时，她实际上是在宣扬这只基金的优点。正是她的自信让格林斯潘起诉了那位警告他不要投资的朋友，认为这位朋友犯了“下意识的愤世嫉俗”的罪。格林斯潘在寻求认可的欲望驱使下答应了，这体现了他当时的政治模式——这位财务顾问是他喜欢并想取悦的一位家庭朋友。

Any of us could have fallen into those traps. Greenspan says that he should’ve known better, though, because he happens to be an expert on gullibility. When he decided to go ahead with the investment, he had almost finished writing a book on why we get duped. Looking back, he wishes he had approached the decision with a different set of tools. He might have analyzed the fund’s strategy more systematically instead of simply trusting in the results. He could have sought out more perspectives from credible sources. He would have experimented with investing smaller amounts over a longer period of time before gambling so much of his life’s savings.

我们任何人都可能落入这些陷阱。格林斯潘表示，他本应更清楚这一点，因为他恰好是研究轻信的专家。当他决定进行这笔投资时，他几乎已经写完了一本关于我们为何受骗的书。回想起来，他希望自己当时能用不同的工具来做决定。他或许应该更系统地分析基金的策略，而不是仅仅相信结果。他或许应该从可靠的来源寻求更多视角。他或许应该在投入如此多的积蓄进行投资之前，先尝试在更长的时间内进行小额投资。

That would have put him in the mode of a scientist.

这会让他成为一名科学家。

A DIFFERENT PAIR OF GOGGLES

一副不同的护目镜

If you’re a scientist by trade, rethinking is fundamental to your profession. You’re paid to be constantly aware of the limits of your understanding. You’re expected to doubt what you know, be curious about what you don’t know, and update your views based on new data. In the past century alone, the application of scientific principles has led to dramatic progress. Biological scientists discovered penicillin. Rocket scientists sent us to the moon. Computer scientists built the internet.

如果你是一名职业科学家，那么反思是你的职业基石。你的职业价值在于时刻意识到自身理解的局限性。你被期望质疑已知的事物，对未知的事物保持好奇，并根据新数据更新你的观点。仅在过去一个世纪，科学原理的应用就带来了巨大的进步。生物科学家发现了青霉素。火箭科学家将我们送上了月球。计算机科学家创造了互联网。

But being a scientist is not just a profession. It’s a frame of mind—a mode of thinking that differs from preaching, prosecuting, and politicking. We move into scientist mode when we’re searching for the truth: we run experiments to test hypotheses and discover knowledge. Scientific tools aren’t reserved for people with white coats and beakers, and using them doesn’t require toiling away for years with a microscope and a petri dish. Hypotheses have as much of a place in our lives as they do in the lab. Experiments can inform our daily decisions. That makes me wonder: is it possible to train people in other fields to think more like scientists, and if so, do they end up making smarter choices?

但科学家不仅仅是一份职业，而是一种心智——一种不同于说教、起诉和政治活动的思维模式。当我们探寻真理时，我们就会进入科学家模式：我们会进行实验来检验假设并发现知识。科学工具并非专属于穿着白大褂、拿着烧杯的人，使用它们也并非需要多年来在显微镜和培养皿上辛勤劳作。假设在我们生活中的地位与在实验室中一样重要。实验可以指导我们的日常决策。这让我不禁思考：是否有可能训练其他领域的人们像科学家一样思考？如果可以，他们最终会做出更明智的选择吗？

Recently, a quartet of European researchers decided to find out. They ran a bold experiment with more than a hundred founders of Italian startups in technology, retail, furniture, food, health care, leisure, and machinery. Most of the founders’ businesses had yet to bring in any revenue, making it an ideal setting to investigate how teaching scientific thinking would influence the bottom line.

最近，四位欧洲研究人员决定一探究竟。他们与一百多位来自意大利科技、零售、家具、食品、医疗保健、休闲和机械行业的初创企业创始人进行了一项大胆的实验。大多数创始人的企业尚未带来任何收入，这使得它成为研究教授科学思维如何影响企业利润的理想环境。

The entrepreneurs arrived in Milan for a training program in entrepreneurship. Over the course of four months, they learned to create a business strategy, interview customers, build a minimum viable product, and then refine a prototype. What they didn’t know was that they’d been randomly assigned to either a “scientific thinking” group or a control group. The training for both groups was identical, except that one was encouraged to view startups through a scientist’s goggles. From that perspective, their strategy is a theory, customer interviews help to develop hypotheses, and their minimum viable product and prototype are experiments to test those hypotheses. Their task is to rigorously measure the results and make decisions based on whether their hypotheses are supported or refuted.

这些创业者来到米兰参加一个创业培训项目。在四个月的时间里，他们学习了制定商业战略、采访客户、打造最小可行产品，并不断完善原型。但他们并不知道，自己被随机分配到“科学思维”组和对照组。两组的培训内容相同，只是其中一人被鼓励以科学家的视角看待初创企业。从这个角度来看，他们的战略是一种理论，客户访谈有助于提出假设，而他们的最小可行产品和原型则是检验这些假设的实验。他们的任务是严格衡量结果，并根据假设是否成立做出决策。

Over the following year, the startups in the control group averaged under $300 in revenue. The startups in the scientific thinking group averaged over $12,000 in revenue. They brought in revenue more than twice as fast—and attracted customers sooner, too. Why? The entrepreneurs in the control group tended to stay wedded to their original strategies and products. It was too easy to preach the virtues of their past decisions, prosecute the vices of alternative options, and politick by catering to advisers who favored the existing direction. The entrepreneurs who had been taught to think like scientists, in contrast, pivoted more than twice as often. When their hypotheses weren’t supported, they knew it was time to rethink their business models.

在接下来的一年里，对照组的初创企业平均收入不到300美元。而科学思维组的初创企业平均收入超过1.2万美元。他们创造收入的速度是对照组的两倍多，而且吸引客户的速度也更快。原因何在？对照组的创业者倾向于固守原有的战略和产品。他们很容易宣扬过去决策的优点，谴责替代方案的弊端，并通过迎合那些倾向于现有方向的顾问来耍花招。相比之下，那些被教导像科学家一样思考的创业者，调整策略的频率是对照组的两倍多。当他们的假设得不到支持时，他们就知道是时候重新思考自己的商业模式了。

What’s surprising about these results is that we typically celebrate great entrepreneurs and leaders for being strong-minded and clear-sighted. They’re supposed to be paragons of conviction: decisive and certain. Yet evidence reveals that when business executives compete in tournaments to price products, the best strategists are actually slow and unsure. Like careful scientists, they take their time so they have the flexibility to change their minds. I’m beginning to think decisiveness is overrated . . . but I reserve the right to change my mind.

这些结果令人惊讶的是，我们通常赞扬伟大的企业家和领导者意志坚定、目光敏锐。他们本应是信念的典范：果断而坚定。然而，证据表明，当企业高管们竞相为产品定价时，最优秀的战略家实际上行动迟缓、缺乏确定性。他们就像谨慎的科学家一样，不慌不忙，以便拥有改变主意的灵活性。我开始觉得果断被高估了……但我保留改变主意的权利。

Just as you don’t have to be a professional scientist to reason like one, being a professional scientist doesn’t guarantee that someone will use the tools of their training. Scientists morph into preachers when they present their pet theories as gospel and treat thoughtful critiques as sacrilege. They veer into politician terrain when they allow their views to be swayed by popularity rather than accuracy. They enter prosecutor mode when they’re hell-bent on debunking and discrediting rather than discovering. After upending physics with his theories of relativity, Einstein opposed the quantum revolution: “ To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.” Sometimes even great scientists need to think more like scientists.

正如你不必成为专业科学家才能像他们一样推理一样，成为专业科学家并不能保证有人会运用他们所受的训练。当科学家将自己钟爱的理论奉为圭臬，将深思熟虑的批评视为亵渎时，他们就变成了传教士。当他们的观点被流行度而非准确性所左右时，他们就变成了政客。当他们一心想揭穿和抹黑而不是探索时，他们就进入了检察官模式。在用相对论颠覆物理学之后，爱因斯坦反对量子革命：“为了惩罚我蔑视权威，命运让我自己成为了权威。”有时，即使是伟大的科学家也需要更像科学家那样思考。

Decades before becoming a smartphone pioneer, Mike Lazaridis was recognized as a science prodigy. In middle school, he made the local news for building a solar panel at the science fair and won an award for reading every science book in the public library. If you open his eighth-grade yearbook, you’ll see a cartoon showing Mike as a mad scientist, with bolts of lightning shooting out of his head.

早在成为智能手机先驱的几十年前，迈克·拉扎里迪斯就被公认为科学天才。中学时期，他因在科学博览会上制作太阳能电池板而登上当地新闻，并因阅读公共图书馆里所有科学书籍而获奖。如果你翻开他八年级的年鉴，你会看到一幅漫画，描绘的是迈克是一位疯狂的科学家，头上射出一道道闪电。

When Mike created the BlackBerry, he was thinking like a scientist. Existing devices for wireless email featured a stylus that was too slow or a keyboard that was too small. People had to clunkily forward their work emails to their mobile device in-boxes, and they took forever to download. He started generating hypotheses and sent his team of engineers off to test them. What if people could hold the device in their hands and type with their thumbs rather than their fingers? What if there was a single mailbox synchronized across devices? What if messages could be relayed through a server and appear on the device only after they were decrypted?

迈克在设计黑莓手机时，就像一位科学家一样思考。当时的无线电子邮件设备要么配备手写笔，要么速度太慢，要么键盘太小。人们不得不笨拙地将工作邮件转发到移动设备的收件箱，而且下载过程耗时良久。他开始提出各种假设，并派出工程师团队进行测试。如果人们可以手持设备，用拇指而不是食指打字，会怎样？如果有一个邮箱可以在不同设备之间同步，会怎样？如果邮件可以通过服务器中继，并且只有在解密后才会出现在设备上，会怎样？

As other companies followed BlackBerry’s lead, Mike would take their smartphones apart and study them. Nothing really impressed him until the summer of 2007, when he was stunned by the computing power inside the first iPhone. “They’ve put a Mac in this thing,” he said. What Mike did next might have been the beginning of the end for the BlackBerry. If the BlackBerry’s rise was due in large part to his success in scientific thinking as an engineer, its demise was in many ways the result of his failure in rethinking as a CEO.

当其他公司纷纷效仿黑莓时，迈克会把他们的智能手机拆开研究。直到2007年夏天，他才真正被它惊艳到。当时，第一代iPhone的计算能力让他惊叹不已。“他们把Mac电脑装进了这玩意儿，”他说。迈克接下来的举动或许开启了黑莓的末日。如果说黑莓的崛起很大程度上归功于他作为一名工程师在科学思维上的成功，那么黑莓的衰落则在很大程度上源于他作为一名CEO未能重新思考。

As the iPhone skyrocketed onto the scene, Mike maintained his belief in the features that had made the BlackBerry a sensation in the past. He was confident that people wanted a wireless device for work emails and calls, not an entire computer in their pocket with apps for home entertainment. As early as 1997, one of his top engineers wanted to add an internet browser, but Mike told him to focus only on email. A decade later, Mike was still certain that a powerful internet browser would drain the battery and strain the bandwidth of wireless networks. He didn’t test the alternative hypotheses.

随着iPhone的火爆，迈克依然坚信黑莓手机过去曾风靡一时的功能。他坚信人们想要的是一款用于工作邮件和通话的无线设备，而不是一台装在口袋里、搭载家庭娱乐应用程序的整机电脑。早在1997年，他的一位顶级工程师就想添加一个互联网浏览器，但迈克告诉他只专注于电子邮件。十年后，迈克仍然坚信强大的互联网浏览器会耗尽电池电量，并占用无线网络带宽。他没有去验证其他假设。

By 2008, the company’s valuation exceeded $70 billion, but the BlackBerry remained the company’s sole product, and it still lacked a reliable browser. In 2010, when his colleagues pitched a strategy to feature encrypted text messages, Mike was receptive but expressed concerns that allowing messages to be exchanged on competitors’ devices would render the BlackBerry obsolete. As his reservations gained traction within the firm, the company abandoned instant messaging, missing an opportunity that WhatsApp later seized for upwards of $19 billion. As gifted as Mike was at rethinking the design of electronic devices, he wasn’t willing to rethink the market for his baby. Intelligence was no cure—it might have been more of a curse.

到2008年，公司估值已超过700亿美元，但黑莓手机仍然是公司唯一的产品，而且仍然缺乏可靠的浏览器。2010年，当同事们提出一项支持加密短信的策略时，迈克欣然接受，但也表示担心允许在竞争对手的设备上收发短信会让黑莓手机过时。随着他的保留意见在公司内部逐渐发酵，公司放弃了即时通讯功能，错失了WhatsApp后来以超过190亿美元的价格收购的机会。尽管迈克擅长重新思考电子设备的设计，但他不愿重新思考自己心爱之物的市场。智力并非良药——它或许更像是一种诅咒。

THE SMARTER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THEY FAIL

越聪明，越容易失败

Mental horsepower doesn’t guarantee mental dexterity. No matter how much brainpower you have, if you lack the motivation to change your mind, you’ll miss many occasions to think again. Research reveals that the higher you score on an IQ test, the more likely you are to fall for stereotypes, because you’re faster at recognizing patterns. And recent experiments suggest that the smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs.

强大的脑力并不能保证思维敏捷。无论你拥有多么强大的脑力，如果你缺乏改变想法的动力，你就会错过很多重新思考的机会。研究表明，智商测试得分越高，你就越容易陷入刻板印象，因为你识别模式的速度更快。最近的实验表明，你越聪明，就越难更新自己的信念。

One study investigated whether being a math whiz makes you better at analyzing data. The answer is yes—if you’re told the data are about something bland, like a treatment for skin rashes. But what if the exact same data are labeled as focusing on an ideological issue that activates strong emotions—like gun laws in the United States?

一项研究调查了数学天才是否能让你更擅长分析数据。答案是肯定的——如果你被告知这些数据是关于一些平淡无奇的事情，比如皮疹的治疗方法。但如果同样的数据被贴上标签，关注的是能引发强烈情绪的意识形态问题——比如美国的枪支法——那又会怎样呢？

Being a quant jock makes you more accurate in interpreting the results—as long as they support your beliefs. Yet if the empirical pattern clashes with your ideology, math prowess is no longer an asset; it actually becomes a liability. The better you are at crunching numbers, the more spectacularly you fail at analyzing patterns that contradict your views. If they were liberals, math geniuses did worse than their peers at evaluating evidence that gun bans failed. If they were conservatives, they did worse at assessing evidence that gun bans worked.

成为一名量化专家能让你更准确地解读结果——只要结果支持你的信念。然而，如果实证模式与你的理念相冲突，数学能力就不再是优势，反而会变成劣势。你越擅长处理数字，就越难分析与你观点相悖的模式。如果数学天才是自由主义者，他们在评估枪支禁令失败的证据方面会比他们的同龄人更差。如果他们是保守主义者，他们在评估枪支禁令有效的证据方面会更差。

In psychology there are at least two biases that drive this pattern. One is confirmation bias: seeing what we expect to see. The other is desirability bias: seeing what we want to see. These biases don’t just prevent us from applying our intelligence. They can actually contort our intelligence into a weapon against the truth. We find reasons to preach our faith more deeply, prosecute our case more passionately, and ride the tidal wave of our political party. The tragedy is that we’re usually unaware of the resulting flaws in our thinking.

心理学中至少有两种偏见驱动着这种模式。一种是确认偏见：看到我们期望看到的东西。另一种是期望偏见：看到我们想要看到的东西。这些偏见不仅阻碍我们运用智慧，实际上还会将我们的智慧扭曲成对抗真理的武器。我们会找到理由更深入地宣扬我们的信仰，更热情地处理我们的案件，并顺应我们所在政党的潮流。悲剧的是，我们通常没有意识到由此造成的思维缺陷。

My favorite bias is the “ I’m not biased” bias, in which people believe they’re more objective than others. It turns out that smart people are more likely to fall into this trap. The brighter you are, the harder it can be to see your own limitations. Being good at thinking can make you worse at rethinking.

我最喜欢的偏见是“我没有偏见”，这种偏见让人认为自己比别人更客观。事实证明，聪明人更容易落入这个陷阱。你越聪明，就越难发现自己的局限性。善于思考反而会让你更不善于反思。

When we’re in scientist mode, we refuse to let our ideas become ideologies. We don’t start with answers or solutions; we lead with questions and puzzles. We don’t preach from intuition; we teach from evidence. We don’t just have healthy skepticism about other people’s arguments; we dare to disagree with our own arguments.

当我们处于科学家模式时，我们拒绝让自己的想法沦为意识形态。我们不会从答案或解决方案开始，而是以问题和谜题为先导。我们不会凭直觉说教，而是以证据为依据进行教学。我们不仅对他人的观点保持健康的怀疑态度，而且敢于反驳自己的观点。

Thinking like a scientist involves more than just reacting with an open mind. It means being actively open-minded. It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrong—not for reasons why we must be right—and revising our views based on what we learn.

像科学家一样思考，不仅仅意味着以开放的心态做出反应，还意味着积极地保持开放的心态。它要求我们寻找可能犯错的理由——而不是必然正确的理由——并根据我们所学到的知识修正我们的观点。

That rarely happens in the other mental modes. In preacher mode, changing our minds is a mark of moral weakness; in scientist mode, it’s a sign of intellectual integrity. In prosecutor mode, allowing ourselves to be persuaded is admitting defeat; in scientist mode, it’s a step toward the truth. In politician mode, we flip-flop in response to carrots and sticks; in scientist mode, we shift in the face of sharper logic and stronger data.

在其他思维模式中，这种情况很少发生。在传教士模式下，改变想法是道德软弱的标志；在科学家模式下，这是学术诚信的标志。在检察官模式下，允许自己被说服就是承认失败；在科学家模式下，这是迈向真理的一步。在政客模式下，我们会因胡萝卜加大棒的政策而摇摆不定；在科学家模式下，我们会在更严密的逻辑和更有力的数据面前改变立场。

I’ve done my best to write this book in scientist mode. * I’m a teacher, not a preacher. I can’t stand politics, and I hope a decade as a tenured professor has cured me of whatever temptation I once felt to appease my audience. Although I’ve spent more than my share of time in prosecutor mode, I’ve decided that in a courtroom I’d rather be the judge. I don’t expect you to agree with everything I think. My hope is that you’ll be intrigued by how I think—and that the studies, stories, and ideas covered here will lead you to do some rethinking of your own. After all, the purpose of learning isn’t to affirm our beliefs; it’s to evolve our beliefs.

我尽力以科学家的视角来写这本书。*我是一位教师，而非传教士。我无法忍受政治，我希望十年的终身教授生涯能够治愈我曾经想要迎合读者的种种诱惑。虽然我花了很多时间扮演检察官的角色，但我决定，在法庭上，我更愿意扮演法官的角色。我不指望你认同我的所有想法。我希望你能对我的思维方式产生兴趣——并且希望本书涵盖的研究、故事和观点能够引导你重新思考自己的观点。毕竟，学习的目的不是为了确认我们的信念，而是为了发展我们的信念。

One of my beliefs is that we shouldn’t be open-minded in every circumstance. There are situations where it might make sense to preach, prosecute, and politick. That said, I think most of us would benefit from being more open more of the time, because it’s in scientist mode that we gain mental agility.

我的一个信念是，我们不应该在所有情况下都保持开放的心态。有些情况下，说教、起诉和政治活动或许是合理的。话虽如此，我认为大多数人如果能更多地保持开放的心态，就会受益匪浅，因为正是在科学家模式下，我们才能获得思维的敏捷。

When psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi studied eminent scientists like Linus Pauling and Jonas Salk, he concluded that what differentiated them from their peers was their cognitive flexibility, their willingness “ to move from one extreme to the other as the occasion requires.” The same pattern held for great artists, and in an independent study of highly creative architects.

心理学家米哈里·契克森米哈赖（Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi）在研究莱纳斯·鲍林（Linus Pauling）和乔纳斯·索尔克（Jonas Salk）等杰出科学家时，得出结论：他们与同辈人的区别在于认知灵活性，以及他们“根据需要从一个极端走向另一个极端”的意愿。同样的模式也适用于伟大的艺术家，以及一项针对极具创造力的建筑师的独立研究。

We can even see it in the Oval Office. Experts assessed American presidents on a long list of personality traits and compared them to rankings by independent historians and political scientists. Only one trait consistently predicted presidential greatness after controlling for factors like years in office, wars, and scandals. It wasn’t whether presidents were ambitious or forceful, friendly or Machiavellian; it wasn’t whether they were attractive, witty, poised, or polished.

我们甚至在椭圆形办公室也能看到这一点。专家们根据一系列性格特征对美国总统进行了评估，并将其与独立历史学家和政治学家的排名进行比较。在控制了任职年限、战争和丑闻等因素后，只有一项特征能够持续预测总统的伟大程度。这项特征并非总统雄心勃勃还是强势，友善还是权谋；也并非他们是否魅力十足、机智风趣、泰然自若还是举止优雅。

What set great presidents apart was their intellectual curiosity and openness. They read widely and were as eager to learn about developments in biology, philosophy, architecture, and music as in domestic and foreign affairs. They were interested in hearing new views and revising their old ones. They saw many of their policies as experiments to run, not points to score. Although they might have been politicians by profession, they often solved problems like scientists.

伟大的总统之所以与众不同，是因为他们求知若渴，开放开放。他们博览群书，渴望了解生物学、哲学、建筑学和音乐领域的发展，就像了解国内和外交事务一样。他们乐于倾听新观点，并修正旧观点。他们将许多政策视为值得进行的实验，而非用来得分的得分点。尽管他们的职业可能是政治家，但他们常常像科学家一样解决问题。

DON’T STOP UNBELIEVING

不要停止不信

As I’ve studied the process of rethinking, I’ve found that it often unfolds in a cycle. It starts with intellectual humility—knowing what we don’t know. We should all be able to make a long list of areas where we’re ignorant. Mine include art, financial markets, fashion, chemistry, food, why British accents turn American in songs, and why it’s impossible to tickle yourself . Recognizing our shortcomings opens the door to doubt. As we question our current understanding, we become curious about what information we’re missing. That search leads us to new discoveries, which in turn maintain our humility by reinforcing how much we still have to learn. If knowledge is power, knowing what we don’t know is wisdom.

在我研究反思的过程时，我发现它往往以循环的方式展开。它始于智识上的谦逊——知道我们不知道什么。我们都应该能够列出一长串我们无知的领域。我的清单包括艺术、金融市场、时尚、化学、食品，以及为什么英国口音在歌曲中会变成美式口音，以及为什么我们不可能给自己挠痒痒。认识到自身的不足会打开怀疑之门。当我们质疑现有的理解时，我们会好奇自己错过了哪些信息。这种探索引领我们获得新的发现，而这些发现反过来又通过强化我们仍有许多知识需要学习来保持我们的谦逊。如果说知识就是力量，那么知道我们不知道什么就是智慧。

Scientific thinking favors humility over pride, doubt over certainty, curiosity over closure. When we shift out of scientist mode, the rethinking cycle breaks down, giving way to an overconfidence cycle. If we’re preaching, we can’t see gaps in our knowledge: we believe we’ve already found the truth. Pride breeds conviction rather than doubt, which makes us prosecutors: we might be laser-focused on changing other people’s minds, but ours is set in stone. That launches us into confirmation bias and desirability bias. We become politicians, ignoring or dismissing whatever doesn’t win the favor of our constituents—our parents, our bosses, or the high school classmates we’re still trying to impress. We become so busy putting on a show that the truth gets relegated to a backstage seat, and the resulting validation can make us arrogant. We fall victim to the fat-cat syndrome, resting on our laurels instead of pressure-testing our beliefs.

科学思维崇尚谦逊而非骄傲，怀疑而非确定，好奇而非了结。当我们脱离科学家模式时，反思循环就会崩溃，取而代之的是过度自信的循环。如果我们在布道，我们就会看不到自身知识的缺口：我们自以为已经找到了真理。骄傲滋生的是信念而非怀疑，这让我们变成了检察官：我们或许一心想改变他人的想法，但我们自己的信念却根深蒂固。这让我们陷入了确认偏差和期望偏差。我们变成了政客，对任何得不到选民——我们的父母、老板，或者我们仍在努力争取的高中同学——青睐的东西视而不见或置之不理。我们忙于装腔作势，以至于真理被置于幕后，而由此产生的认可会让我们变得傲慢自大。我们成了“肥猫综合症”的受害者，固步自封，却不愿承受压力来检验自己的信念。

In the case of the BlackBerry, Mike Lazaridis was trapped in an overconfidence cycle. Taking pride in his successful invention gave him too much conviction. Nowhere was that clearer than in his preference for the keyboard over a touchscreen. It was a BlackBerry virtue he loved to preach—and an Apple vice he was quick to prosecute. As his company’s stock fell, Mike got caught up in confirmation bias and desirability bias, and fell victim to validation from fans. “ It’s an iconic product,” he said of the BlackBerry in 2011. “It’s used by business, it’s used by leaders, it’s used by celebrities.” By 2012, the iPhone had captured a quarter of the global smartphone market, but Mike was still resisting the idea of typing on glass. “I don’t get this,” he said at a board meeting, pointing at a phone with a touchscreen. “ The keyboard is one of the reasons they buy BlackBerrys.” Like a politician who campaigns only to his base, he focused on the keyboard taste of millions of existing users, neglecting the appeal of a touchscreen to billions of potential users. For the record, I still miss the keyboard , and I’m excited that it’s been licensed for an attempted comeback.

就黑莓而言，迈克·拉扎里迪斯陷入了过度自信的怪圈。他为自己成功的发明感到自豪，这让他过于自信。最明显的表现就是他更偏爱全键盘而非触摸屏。这是他热衷宣扬的黑莓优点，也是他迅速抵制的苹果缺点。随着公司股价下跌，迈克陷入了确认偏差和期望偏差，最终沦为粉丝们的“牺牲品”。2011年，他谈到黑莓时说道：“这是一款标志性产品。商家使用它，领导者使用它，名人也使用它。”到2012年，iPhone已经占据了全球智能手机市场的四分之一，但迈克仍然拒绝在玻璃屏幕上打字。“我不明白，”他在一次董事会会议上指着一部带触摸屏的手机说道。“键盘是他们购买黑莓手机的原因之一。”就像一个只向自己支持者宣传的政客一样，他专注于数百万现有用户的键盘口味，却忽视了触摸屏对数十亿潜在用户的吸引力。说实话，我仍然怀念键盘，而且我很高兴它获得了授权，准备回归。

When Mike finally started reimagining the screen and software, some of his engineers didn’t want to abandon their past work. The failure to rethink was widespread. In 2011, an anonymous high-level employee inside the firm wrote an open letter to Mike and his co-CEO. “ We laughed and said they are trying to put a computer on a phone, that it won’t work,” the letter read. “We are now 3–4 years too late.”

当迈克最终开始重新构思屏幕和软件时，他的一些工程师不愿放弃过去的工作。这种不愿重新思考的现象普遍存在。2011年，公司内部一位不愿透露姓名的高管给迈克和他的联合首席执行官写了一封公开信。信中写道：“我们当时笑着说，他们想把电脑装到手机上，这根本行不通。我们现在已经晚了三四年。”

Our convictions can lock us in prisons of our own making. The solution is not to decelerate our thinking—it’s to accelerate our rethinking. That’s what resurrected Apple from the brink of bankruptcy to become the world’s most valuable company.

我们的信念会把我们禁锢在自己建造的牢笼里。解决办法不是放慢我们的思考速度，而是加速我们的反思。这正是苹果从破产边缘起死回生，成为全球市值最高公司的原因。

The legend of Apple’s renaissance revolves around the lone genius of Steve Jobs. It was his conviction and clarity of vision, the story goes, that gave birth to the iPhone. The reality is that he was dead-set against the mobile phone category. His employees had the vision for it, and it was their ability to change his mind that really revived Apple. Although Jobs knew how to “think different,” it was his team that did much of the rethinking.

苹果复兴的传奇围绕着史蒂夫·乔布斯这位孤独的天才展开。据说，正是他的坚定信念和清晰的愿景催生了iPhone。但事实上，他坚决反对手机领域。他的员工们对手机抱有远见，正是他们改变乔布斯想法的能力，才真正让苹果复兴。尽管乔布斯深谙“非同凡想”之道，但真正做出重新思考的却是他的团队。

In 2004, a small group of engineers, designers, and marketers pitched Jobs on turning their hit product, the iPod, into a phone. “Why the f@*& would we want to do that?” Jobs snapped. “That is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” The team had recognized that mobile phones were starting to feature the ability to play music, but Jobs was worried about cannibalizing Apple’s thriving iPod business. He hated cell-phone companies and didn’t want to design products within the constraints that carriers imposed. When his calls dropped or the software crashed, he would sometimes smash his phone to pieces in frustration. In private meetings and on public stages, he swore over and over that he would never make a phone.

2004年，一小群工程师、设计师和营销人员向乔布斯推销他们的热门产品iPod，希望将其改造成手机。“我们他妈的为什么要这么做？”乔布斯厉声说道，“这是我听过的最愚蠢的想法。”团队意识到手机开始具备播放音乐的功能，但乔布斯担心这会蚕食苹果蓬勃发展的iPod业务。他讨厌手机公司，不想在运营商的限制下设计产品。当电话掉线或软件崩溃时，他有时会沮丧地把手机摔得粉碎。无论是在私人会议还是公开场合，他都反复发誓，他永远不会制造手机。

Yet some of Apple’s engineers were already doing research in that area. They worked together to persuade Jobs that he didn’t know what he didn’t know and urged him to doubt his convictions. It might be possible, they argued, to build a smartphone that everyone would love using—and to get the carriers to do it Apple’s way.

然而，苹果的一些工程师早已开始研究这个领域。他们联手说服乔布斯，他不知道自己不知道什么，并敦促他质疑自己的信念。他们声称，或许可以打造一款人人都喜欢的智能手机，并让运营商按照苹果的方式去做。

Research shows that when people are resistant to change, it helps to reinforce what will stay the same. Visions for change are more compelling when they include visions of continuity. Although our strategy might evolve, our identity will endure.

研究表明，当人们抗拒改变时，它反而会强化那些保持不变的事物。当变革愿景包含延续性愿景时，它会更具吸引力。尽管我们的战略可能会演变，但我们的身份将永存。

The engineers who worked closely with Jobs understood that this was one of the best ways to convince him. They assured him that they weren’t trying to turn Apple into a phone company. It would remain a computer company—they were just taking their existing products and adding a phone on the side. Apple was already putting twenty thousand songs in your pocket, so why wouldn’t they put everything else in your pocket, too? They needed to rethink their technology, but they would preserve their DNA. After six months of discussion, Jobs finally became curious enough to give the effort his blessing, and two different teams were off to the races in an experiment to test whether they should add calling capabilities to the iPod or turn the Mac into a miniature tablet that doubled as a phone. Just four years after it launched, the iPhone accounted for half of Apple’s revenue.

与乔布斯密切合作的工程师们明白，这是说服乔布斯的最佳方法之一。他们向乔布斯保证，他们并非试图将苹果变成一家电话公司。它仍然是一家电脑公司——他们只是在现有产品的基础上，额外增加了一部电话。苹果已经把两万首歌曲装进了你的口袋，为什么不把其他所有东西也装进去呢？他们需要重新思考他们的技术，但他们会保留自己的DNA。经过六个月的讨论，乔布斯终于产生了足够的好奇心，同意了这项努力。于是，两个不同的团队开始了一项实验，测试他们是否应该为iPod添加通话功能，或者将Mac变成一台可以兼作电话的微型平板电脑。iPhone上市仅四年，就贡献了苹果一半的收入。

The iPhone represented a dramatic leap in rethinking the smartphone. Since its inception, smartphone innovation has been much more incremental, with different sizes and shapes, better cameras, and longer battery life, but few fundamental changes to the purpose or user experience. Looking back, if Mike Lazaridis had been more open to rethinking his pet product, would BlackBerry and Apple have compelled each other to reimagine the smartphone multiple times by now?

iPhone 代表着对智能手机的一次重大飞跃。自诞生以来，智能手机的创新一直循序渐进，尺寸和形状各异，摄像头更先进，电池续航时间更长，但其用途和用户体验却鲜有根本性的改变。回想起来，如果 Mike Lazaridis 更愿意重新思考他钟爱的产品，黑莓和苹果现在还会迫使对方多次重新构想智能手机吗？

The curse of knowledge is that it closes our minds to what we don’t know. Good judgment depends on having the skill—and the will—to open our minds. I’m pretty confident that in life, rethinking is an increasingly important habit. Of course, I might be wrong. If I am, I’ll be quick to think again.

知识的诅咒在于它封闭了我们的心扉，让我们无法接触未知。良好的判断力取决于拥有开启心智的技能——以及意愿。我确信，在生活中，反思是一个越来越重要的习惯。当然，我可能错了。如果我错了，我会很快重新思考。

CHAPTER 2 第二章

The Armchair Quarterback and the Impostor

扶手椅四分卫和冒名顶替者

Finding the Sweet Spot of Confidence

找到自信的最佳点

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

—Charles Darwin

无知比知识更容易让人自信。——查尔斯·达尔文

When Ursula Mercz was admitted to the clinic, she complained of headaches, back pain, and dizziness severe enough that she could no longer work. Over the following month her condition deteriorated. She struggled to locate the glass of water she put next to her bed. She couldn’t find the door to her room. She walked directly into her bed frame.

乌尔苏拉·默茨（Ursula Mercz）入院时，她抱怨头痛、背痛和头晕，严重到无法工作。接下来的一个月里，她的病情恶化。她很难找到放在床边的水杯。她找不到房间的门。她一走进去就撞到了床架上。

Ursula was a seamstress in her midfifties, and she hadn’t lost her dexterity: she was able to cut different shapes out of paper with scissors. She could easily point to her nose, mouth, arms, and legs, and had no difficulty describing her home and her pets. For an Austrian doctor named Gabriel Anton, she presented a curious case. When Anton put a red ribbon and scissors on the table in front of her, she couldn’t name them, even though “she confirmed, calmly and faithfully, that she could see the presented objects.”

乌尔苏拉是一位五十多岁的裁缝，但她的灵巧依然未减：她能用剪刀在纸上剪出不同的形状。她能轻松地指着自己的鼻子、嘴巴、胳膊和腿，也能毫不费力地描述她的家和宠物。对于一位名叫加布里埃尔·安东的奥地利医生来说，她是一个奇特的案例。当安东把一条红丝带和一把剪刀放在她面前的桌子上时，她却说不出它们的名字，尽管“她平静而坚定地确认，她能看到那些东西”。

She was clearly having problems with language production, which she acknowledged, and with spatial orientation. Yet something else was wrong: Ursula could no longer tell the difference between light and dark. When Anton held up an object and asked her to describe it, she didn’t even try to look at it but instead reached out to touch it. Tests showed that her eyesight was severely impaired. Oddly, when Anton asked her about the deficit, she insisted she could see. Eventually, when she lost her vision altogether, she remained completely unaware of it. “It was now extremely astonishing,” Anton wrote, “that the patient did not notice her massive and later complete loss of her ability to see . . . she was mentally blind to her blindness.”

她显然在语言表达方面存在问题，这一点她自己也承认，而且她还缺乏空间定向能力。然而，还有其他问题：乌尔苏拉再也无法区分光明与黑暗。当安东拿起一个物体让她描述时，她甚至没有试着去看，而是伸手去摸。检查显示她的视力严重受损。奇怪的是，当安东问起她的视力问题时，她却坚称自己能看见。最终，当她完全失明时，她却完全没有意识到这一点。“现在想想真是令人震惊，”安东写道，“病人竟然没有注意到自己视力的严重丧失，后来甚至完全丧失了……她完全无法意识到自己的失明。”

It was the late 1800s, and Ursula wasn’t alone. A decade earlier a neuropathologist in Zurich had reported a case of a man who suffered an accident that left him blind but was unaware of it despite being “intellectually unimpaired.” Although he didn’t blink when a fist was placed in front of his face and couldn’t see the food on his plate, “he thought he was in a dark humid hole or cellar.”

那是19世纪末，乌尔苏拉并非孤例。十年前，苏黎世的一位神经病理学家报道过一个案例：一名男子遭遇事故导致失明，尽管“智力正常”，却浑然不知。虽然拳头挡在他面前，他连眼睛都没眨一下，也看不到盘子里的食物，“但他以为自己身处一个阴暗潮湿的洞穴或地窖里。”

Half a century later, a pair of doctors reported six cases of people who had gone blind but claimed otherwise. “ One of the most striking features in the behavior of our patients was their inability to learn from their experiences,” the doctors wrote:

半个世纪后，两位医生报告了六例失明者声称自己失明的病例。“我们病人行为中最显著的特征之一，就是他们无法从自身经历中学习，”医生写道：

As they were not aware of their blindness when they walked about, they bumped into the furniture and walls but did not change their behavior. When confronted with their blindness in a rather pointed fashion, they would either deny any visual difficulty or remark: “It is so dark in the room; why don’t they turn the light on?”; “I forgot my glasses,” or “My vision is not too good, but I can see all right.” The patients would not accept any demonstration or assurance which would prove their blindness.

由于他们走路时没有意识到自己失明，所以会撞到家具和墙壁，但行为举止却没有改变。当有人尖锐地指出自己的失明时，他们要么否认视力障碍，要么会说：“房间里这么黑，为什么不开灯？”；“我忘了戴眼镜”，或者“我的视力不太好，但看得还行。” 患者不会接受任何能证明自己失明的证明或保证。

This phenomenon was first described by the Roman philosopher Seneca, who wrote of a woman who was blind but complained that she was simply in a dark room. It’s now accepted in the medical literature as Anton’s syndrome— a deficit of self-awareness in which a person is oblivious to a physical disability but otherwise doing fairly well cognitively. It’s known to be caused by damage to the occipital lobe of the brain. Yet I’ve come to believe that even when our brains are functioning normally, we’re all vulnerable to a version of Anton’s syndrome.

这种现象最早由罗马哲学家塞内加描述，他写道，一位失明的女子抱怨自己只是身处黑暗的房间。如今，医学文献将其称为安东综合征——一种自我意识缺陷，患者虽然对身体残疾浑然不觉，但认知能力却相当良好。已知这种症状是由大脑枕叶受损引起的。然而，我开始相信，即使我们的大脑功能正常，我们所有人也都容易患上某种形式的安东综合征。

We all have blind spots in our knowledge and opinions. The bad news is that they can leave us blind to our blindness, which gives us false confidence in our judgment and prevents us from rethinking. The good news is that with the right kind of confidence, we can learn to see ourselves more clearly and update our views. In driver’s training we were taught to identify our visual blind spots and eliminate them with the help of mirrors and sensors. In life, since our minds don’t come equipped with those tools, we need to learn to recognize our cognitive blind spots and revise our thinking accordingly.

我们的知识和观点都存在盲点。坏消息是，这些盲点会让我们对自己的盲点视而不见，从而对自己的判断产生虚假的自信，并阻碍我们重新思考。好消息是，有了正确的自信，我们就能学会更清晰地认识自己，并更新我们的观点。在驾驶培训中，我们学会了识别视觉盲点，并借助后视镜和传感器消除它们。但在生活中，由于我们的大脑并不具备这些工具，我们需要学会识别认知盲点，并相应地调整我们的思维。

A TALE OF TWO SYNDROMES

两种综合症的故事

On the first day of December 2015, Halla Tómasdóttir got a call she never expected. The roof of Halla’s house had just given way to a thick layer of snow and ice. As she watched water pouring down one of the walls, the friend on the other end of the line asked if Halla had seen the Facebook posts about her. Someone had started a petition for Halla to run for the presidency of Iceland.

2015年12月的第一天，哈拉·托马斯多蒂尔接到了一个她意想不到的电话。哈拉家的屋顶刚刚被厚厚的冰雪覆盖。当她看到水顺着一面墙流下来时，电话那头的朋友问哈拉是否看到了她Facebook上的帖子。有人发起了一项请愿活动，鼓励哈拉竞选冰岛总统。

Halla’s first thought was, Who am I to be president? She had helped start a university and then cofounded an investment firm in 2007. When the 2008 financial crisis rocked the world, Iceland was hit particularly hard; all three of its major private commercial banks defaulted and its currency collapsed. Relative to the size of its economy, the country faced the worst financial meltdown in human history, but Halla demonstrated her leadership skills by guiding her firm successfully through the crisis. Even with that accomplishment, she didn’t feel prepared for the presidency. She had no political background; she had never served in government or in any kind of public-sector role.

哈拉的第一个念头是：我凭什么当总统？她曾参与创办了一所大学，并在2007年与他人共同创立了一家投资公司。2008年金融危机席卷全球，冰岛受创尤为严重；该国三大私人商业银行全部违约，货币暴跌。相对于其经济规模，冰岛面临着人类历史上最严重的金融危机，但哈拉展现了她的领导才能，带领公司成功渡过危机。即使取得了这样的成就，她仍然觉得自己还没有做好担任总统的准备。她没有任何政治背景；从未在政府或任何公共部门任职过。

It wasn’t the first time Halla had felt like an impostor. At the age of eight, her piano teacher had placed her on a fast track and frequently asked her to play in concerts, but she never felt she was worthy of the honor—and so, before every concert, she felt sick. Although the stakes were much higher now, the self-doubt felt familiar. “I had a massive pit in my stomach, like the piano recital but much bigger,” Halla told me. “It’s the worst case of adult impostor syndrome I’ve ever had.” For months, she struggled with the idea of becoming a candidate. As her friends and family encouraged her to recognize that she had some relevant skills, Halla was still convinced that she lacked the necessary experience and confidence. She tried to persuade other women to run—one of whom ended up ascending to a different office, as the prime minister of Iceland.

哈拉并非第一次觉得自己像个冒名顶替者。八岁时，她的钢琴老师让她快速成长，并经常邀请她参加音乐会，但她从未觉得自己配得上这份荣誉——因此，每次音乐会前，她都会感到难受。虽然现在风险更大，但这种自我怀疑却似曾相识。“我心里像有个大坑，就像钢琴独奏会那样，只是更大，”哈拉告诉我。“这是我经历过的最严重的成人冒名顶替综合症。”几个月来，她一直在纠结是否要成为候选人。尽管亲朋好友鼓励她承认自己具备一些相关技能，但哈拉仍然坚信自己缺乏必要的经验和自信。她试图说服其他女性参选——其中一位最终升任了另一个职位，成为了冰岛总理。

Yet the petition didn’t go away, and Halla’s friends, family, and colleagues didn’t stop urging her on. Eventually, she found herself asking, Who am I not to serve ? She ultimately decided to go for it, but the odds were heavily stacked against her. She was running as an unknown independent candidate in a field of more than twenty contenders. One of her competitors was particularly powerful—and particularly dangerous.

然而，请愿书并没有消失，哈拉的朋友、家人和同事们也一直在鼓励她。最终，她不禁扪心自问：我有什么资格不为谁服务？她最终决定投身其中，但胜算渺茫。她当时只是个默默无闻的独立候选人，而竞争者多达二十余人。她的一位竞争对手势力强大，也格外危险。

When an economist was asked to name the three people most responsible for Iceland’s bankruptcy, she nominated Davíð Oddsson for all three spots. As Iceland’s prime minister from 1991 to 2004, Oddsson put the country’s banks in jeopardy by privatizing them. Then, as governor of Iceland’s central bank from 2005 to 2009, he allowed the banks’ balance sheets to balloon to more than ten times the national GDP. When the people protested his mismanagement, Oddsson refused to resign and had to be forced out by Parliament. Time magazine later identified him as one of the twenty-five people to blame for the financial crisis worldwide. Nevertheless, in 2016 Oddsson announced his candidacy for the presidency of Iceland: “ My experience and knowledge, which is considerable, could go well with this office.”

当一位经济学家被问及冰岛破产的三大罪魁祸首时，她提名达维德·奥德松（Davíð Oddsson）担任所有三个职位。奥德松于1991年至2004年担任冰岛总理，他将国家银行私有化，使其陷入危机。随后，在2005年至2009年担任冰岛央行行长期间，他又任由银行资产负债表膨胀至国民生产总值的十倍以上。当民众抗议他的管理不善时，奥德松拒绝辞职，最终被议会赶下台。《时代》杂志后来将他列为全球金融危机的25位罪魁祸首之一。尽管如此，奥德松还是在2016年宣布竞选冰岛总统：“我丰富的经验和知识，非常适合这个职位。”

In theory, confidence and competence go hand in hand. In practice, they often diverge. You can see it when people rate their own leadership skills and are also evaluated by their colleagues, supervisors, or subordinates. In a meta-analysis of ninety-five studies involving over a hundred thousand people, women typically underestimated their leadership skills, while men overestimated their skills.

理论上，自信和能力相辅相成。但在实践中，两者往往存在分歧。这一点在人们评估自己的领导能力以及同事、上司或下属对其的评价时尤为明显。一项涵盖95项研究、涉及超过十万人的荟萃分析显示，女性通常低估自己的领导能力，而男性则高估自己的能力。

You’ve probably met some football fans who are convinced they know more than the coaches on the sidelines. That’s the armchair quarterback syndrome, where confidence exceeds competence. Even after calling financial plays that destroyed an economy, Davíð Oddsson still refused to acknowledge that he wasn’t qualified to coach—let alone quarterback. He was blind to his weaknesses.

你可能见过一些球迷，他们自以为比场边的教练懂得更多。这就是“扶手椅四分卫综合症”，自信超过了能力。即使在下达了摧毁经济的财务指令后，戴维·奥德森仍然拒绝承认自己没有资格执教——更不用说担任四分卫了。他对自己身上的弱点视而不见。

Jason Adam Katzenstein/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast

杰森·亚当·卡岑斯坦/《纽约客》收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast

The opposite of armchair quarterback syndrome is impostor syndrome, where competence exceeds confidence. Think of the people you know who believe that they don’t deserve their success. They’re genuinely unaware of just how intelligent, creative, or charming they are, and no matter how hard you try, you can’t get them to rethink their views. Even after an online petition proved that many others had confidence in her, Halla Tómasdóttir still wasn’t convinced she was qualified to lead her country. She was blind to her strengths.

与“纸上谈兵”综合症相反的是“冒名顶替综合症”，即能力大于自信。想想你认识的那些认为自己不配获得成功的人。他们真的不知道自己有多聪明、有创造力或魅力，无论你多么努力，都无法让他们重新思考自己的观点。即使在网上请愿书证明许多人对她有信心之后，哈拉·托马斯多蒂尔仍然不相信自己有资格领导她的国家。她对自己的优势视而不见。

Although they had opposite blind spots, being on the extremes of confidence left both candidates reluctant to rethink their plans. The ideal level of confidence probably lies somewhere between being an armchair quarterback and an impostor. How do we find that sweet spot?

尽管两位候选人的盲点截然相反，但过于自信的性格却让他们不愿重新考虑自己的计划。理想的自信水平或许介于“纸上谈兵”和“冒名顶替”之间。我们该如何找到这个最佳平衡点呢？

THE IGNORANCE OF ARROGANCE

傲慢的无知

One of my favorite accolades is a satirical award for research that’s as entertaining as it is enlightening. It’s called the Ig™ Nobel Prize, and it’s handed out by actual Nobel laureates. One autumn in college, I raced to the campus theater to watch the ceremony along with over a thousand fellow nerds. The winners included a pair of physicists who created a magnetic field to levitate a live frog, a trio of chemists who discovered that the biochemistry of romantic love has something in common with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a computer scientist who invented PawSense—software that detects cat paws on a keyboard and makes an annoying noise to deter them. Unclear whether it also worked with dogs.

我最喜欢的奖项之一，是一项以讽刺手法颁发的奖项，旨在表彰那些既有趣又发人深省的研究成果。它被称为“搞笑诺贝尔奖”（Ig™ Nobel Prize），由真正的诺贝尔奖得主颁发。大学期间的一个秋天，我和一千多名“书呆子”们一起跑到校园剧院观看颁奖典礼。获奖者包括两位物理学家，他们创造了磁场，让一只活青蛙悬浮在空中；三位化学家，他们发现爱情的生物化学机制与强迫症存在某种共通之处；还有一位计算机科学家，他发明了“爪子感知”（PawSense）软件——它可以检测猫爪在键盘上的活动，并发出恼人的声音来吓跑它们。目前尚不清楚这款软件是否也适用于狗。

Several of the awards made me laugh, but the honorees who made me think the most were two psychologists, David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They had just published a “modest report” on skill and confidence that would soon become famous. They found that in many situations, those who can’t . . . don’t know they can’t. According to what’s now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, it’s when we lack competence that we’re most likely to be brimming with overconfidence.

有几个奖项让我捧腹大笑，但最让我深思的是两位心理学家——大卫·邓宁和贾斯汀·克鲁格。他们刚刚发表了一份关于技能和自信的“简明报告”，这份报告很快就名声大噪。他们发现，在很多情况下，那些能力不足的人……并不知道自己能力不足。根据现在被称为“邓宁-克鲁格效应”的理论，当我们能力不足时，最容易变得过度自信。

In the original Dunning-Kruger studies, people who scored the lowest on tests of logical reasoning, grammar, and sense of humor had the most inflated opinions of their skills. On average, they believed they did better than 62 percent of their peers, but in reality outperformed only 12 percent of them. The less intelligent we are in a particular domain, the more we seem to overestimate our actual intelligence in that domain. In a group of football fans, the one who knows the least is the most likely to be the armchair quarterback, prosecuting the coach for calling the wrong play and preaching about a better playbook.

在最初的邓宁-克鲁格研究中，逻辑推理、语法和幽默感测试中得分最低的人对自己的技能评价最高。平均而言，他们认为自己比62%的同龄人表现更好，但实际上只比其中12%的人表现更好。我们在某个领域的智力越低，就越容易高估自己在该领域的实际智力。在一群橄榄球迷中，知识最少的人最有可能成为纸上谈兵的“四分卫”，指责教练打错战术，并鼓吹更好的战术。

This tendency matters because it compromises self-awareness, and it trips us up across all kinds of settings. Look what happened when economists evaluated the operations and management practices of thousands of companies across a wide range of industries and countries, and compared their assessments with managers’ self-ratings:

这种倾向很重要，因为它会损害自我意识，让我们在各种情况下都犯错。看看经济学家评估了来自不同行业和国家的数千家公司的运营和管理实践，并将他们的评估与管理者的自我评价进行比较后，结果如何：

*Sources* : World Management Survey; Bloom and Van Reenen 2007; and Maloney 2017b.

来源：世界管理调查；Bloom 和 Van Reenen 2007；以及 Maloney 2017b。

In this graph, if self-assessments of performance matched actual performance, every country would be on the dotted line. Overconfidence existed in every culture, and it was most rampant where management was the poorest. *

在这张图表中，如果自我绩效评估与实际绩效相符，那么每个国家都会位于虚线上。过度自信存在于每种文化中，而在管理最差的地方，这种现象最为猖獗。*

Of course, management skills can be hard to judge objectively. Knowledge should be easier—you were tested on yours throughout school. Compared to most people, how much do you think you know about each of the following topics—more, less, or the same?

当然，管理技能很难客观评判。知识应该更容易理解——你在学校期间就接受过相关测试。与大多数人相比，你认为自己对以下每个主题的了解程度如何——更多、更少，还是相同？

Why English became the official language of the United States

英语为何成为美国的官方语言
Why women were burned at the stake in Salem

为什么塞勒姆的妇女会被烧死
What job Walt Disney had before he drew Mickey Mouse

沃尔特·迪士尼在画米老鼠之前从事什么工作
On which spaceflight humans first laid eyes on the Great Wall of China

人类在哪次太空飞行中第一次看到中国的长城
Why eating candy affects how kids behave

为什么吃糖果会影响孩子的行为

One of my biggest pet peeves is feigned knowledge, where people pretend to know things they don’t. It bothers me so much that at this very moment I’m writing an entire book about it. In a series of studies, people rated whether they knew more or less than most people about a range of topics like these, and then took a quiz to test their actual knowledge. The more superior participants thought their knowledge was, the more they overestimated themselves—and the less interested they were in learning and updating. If you think you know more about history or science than most people, chances are you know less than you think. As Dunning quips, “ The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club.” *

我最讨厌的事情之一就是假装知道，也就是人们假装知道他们不知道的事情。这让我非常困扰，以至于此刻我正在写一本关于它的书。在一系列研究中，人们评估自己在一系列类似主题上的了解程度是比大多数人多还是少，然后进行测验来测试他们的实际知识水平。参与者认为自己的知识水平越高，他们就越高估自己，也就越不愿意学习和更新知识。如果你认为自己比大多数人更了解历史或科学，那么很可能你的了解程度比你想象的要少。正如邓宁所说：“邓宁-克鲁格俱乐部的第一条规则就是你不知道自己是邓宁-克鲁格俱乐部的成员。”*

On the questions above, if you felt you knew anything at all, think again. America has no official language, suspected witches were hanged in Salem but not burned, Walt Disney didn’t draw Mickey Mouse (it was the work of an animator named Ub Iwerks), you can’t actually see the Great Wall of China from space, and the average effect of sugar on children’s behavior is zero.

关于以上问题，如果你觉得自己什么都懂，那就再想想吧。美国没有官方语言；塞勒姆的女巫嫌疑犯被绞死了，但没有被烧死；沃尔特·迪士尼没有画米老鼠（那是一位名叫乌布·伊沃克斯的动画师的作品）；你实际上无法从太空看到中国的长城；糖对儿童行为的平均影响为零。

Although the Dunning-Kruger effect is often amusing in everyday life, it was no laughing matter in Iceland. Despite serving as governor of the central bank, Davíð Oddsson had no training in finance or economics. Before entering politics, he had created a radio comedy show, written plays and short stories, gone to law school, and worked as a journalist. During his reign as Iceland’s prime minister, Oddsson was so dismissive of experts that he disbanded the National Economic Institute. To force him out of his post at the central bank, Parliament had to pass an unconventional law: any governor would have to have at least a master’s degree in economics. That didn’t stop Oddsson from running for president a few years later. He seemed utterly blind to his blindness: he didn’t know what he didn’t know.

虽然邓宁-克鲁格效应在日常生活中常常令人啼笑皆非，但在冰岛却绝非儿戏。尽管担任央行行长，达维德·奥德森却从未接受过任何金融或经济学方面的专业训练。从政之前，他创办过广播喜剧节目，写过剧本和短篇小说，上过法学院，还做过记者。担任冰岛总理期间，奥德森对专家极其不屑，甚至解散了国家经济研究所。为了迫使他辞去央行行长一职，议会不得不通过一项非常规法律：任何行长都必须至少拥有经济学硕士学位。但这并没有阻止奥德森几年后竞选总统。他似乎完全没有意识到自己的盲目：他不知道自己不知道什么。

STRANDED AT THE SUMMIT OF MOUNT STUPID

困于愚山顶峰

The problem with armchair quarterback syndrome is that it stands in the way of rethinking. If we’re certain that we know something, we have no reason to look for gaps and flaws in our knowledge—let alone fill or correct them. In one study, the people who scored the lowest on an emotional intelligence test weren’t just the most likely to overestimate their skills. They were also the most likely to dismiss their scores as inaccurate or irrelevant—and the least likely to invest in coaching or self-improvement.

纸上谈兵综合症的问题在于它阻碍了反思。如果我们确信自己了解某事，就没有理由去寻找知识中的空白和缺陷，更不用说填补或纠正它们了。一项研究表明，情商测试得分最低的人不仅最容易高估自己的技能，他们也最容易将自己的分数视为不准确或无关紧要，并且最不可能投入精力去寻求指导或自我提升。

Yes, some of this comes down to our fragile egos. We’re driven to deny our weaknesses when we want to see ourselves in a positive light or paint a glowing picture of ourselves to others. A classic case is the crooked politician who claims to crusade against corruption, but is actually motivated by willful blindness or social deception. Yet motivation is only part of the story. *

是的，这部分源于我们脆弱的自尊心。当我们想要以积极的眼光看待自己，或在他人面前展现出光鲜亮丽的形象时，我们就会被迫否认自身的弱点。一个典型的例子就是那些声称要打击腐败的腐败政客，他们实际上是故意视而不见或欺骗社会。然而，动机只是故事的一部分。*

There’s a less obvious force that clouds our vision of our abilities: a deficit in metacognitive skill, the ability to think about our thinking. Lacking competence can leave us blind to our own incompetence. If you’re a tech entrepreneur and you’re uninformed about education systems, you can feel certain that your master plan will fix them. If you’re socially awkward and you’re missing some insight on social graces, you can strut around believing you’re James Bond. In high school, a friend told me I didn’t have a sense of humor. What made her think that? “You don’t laugh at all my jokes.” I’m hilarious . . . said no funny person ever. I’ll leave it to you to decide who lacked the sense of humor.

有一种不太明显的力量蒙蔽了我们对自己能力的认知：元认知技能（即反思自身思维的能力）的缺陷。能力的缺失会让我们对自身的无能视而不见。如果你是一位科技创业者，并且对教育体系一无所知，你大可放心，你的总体规划一定会解决这个问题。如果你不擅长社交，对社交礼仪缺乏一些了解，你大可趾高气扬地以为自己是詹姆斯·邦德。高中时，一个朋友说我没有幽默感。她为什么会这么想？“我的笑话你一个都笑不出来。”“我很搞笑……”这句话从来没被幽默感的人说过。至于谁缺乏幽默感，那就留给你来评判吧。

When we lack the knowledge and skills to achieve excellence, we sometimes lack the knowledge and skills to judge excellence. This insight should immediately put your favorite confident ignoramuses in their place. Before we poke fun at them, though, it’s worth remembering that we all have moments when we are them.

当我们缺乏实现卓越的知识和技能时，我们有时也会缺乏评判卓越的知识和技能。这种洞察力应该能让你最喜欢的那些自信无知的人立刻认清自己的处境。不过，在我们嘲笑他们之前，值得记住的是，我们每个人都有这样的时刻。

We’re all novices at many things, but we’re not always blind to that fact. We tend to overestimate ourselves on desirable skills, like the ability to carry on a riveting conversation. We’re also prone to overconfidence in situations where it’s easy to confuse experience for expertise, like driving, typing, trivia, and managing emotions. Yet we underestimate ourselves when we can easily recognize that we lack experience—like painting, driving a race car, and rapidly reciting the alphabet backward. Absolute beginners rarely fall into the Dunning-Kruger trap. If you don’t know a thing about football, you probably don’t walk around believing you know more than the coach.

我们在很多事情上都是新手，但我们并非总是对这一事实视而不见。我们倾向于高估自己渴望的技能，比如进行一场引人入胜的对话的能力。我们也容易在容易将经验与专业知识混淆的场合过度自信，比如驾驶、打字、处理琐事和情绪管理。然而，当我们很容易意识到自己缺乏经验时，我们就会低估自己——比如绘画、驾驶赛车和快速倒背字母表。完全的初学者很少会落入邓宁-克鲁格陷阱。如果你对橄榄球一无所知，你可能不会到处走动，认为自己比教练更懂。

It’s when we progress from novice to amateur that we become overconfident. A bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. In too many domains of our lives, we never gain enough expertise to question our opinions or discover what we don’t know. We have just enough information to feel self-assured about making pronouncements and passing judgment, failing to realize that we’ve climbed to the top of Mount Stupid without making it over to the other side.

当我们从新手变成业余爱好者时，我们就会变得过度自信。一点点知识可能很危险。在生活中太多领域，我们从未获得足够的专业知识来质疑自己的观点，或发现我们不知道的东西。我们掌握的信息刚好够我们自信地发表声明和做出判断，却没有意识到我们已经爬到了愚蠢山的顶峰，却没有到达另一边。

You can see this phenomenon in one of Dunning’s experiments that involved people playing the role of doctors in a simulated zombie apocalypse. When they’ve seen only a handful of injured victims, their perceived and actual skills match. Unfortunately, as they gain experience, their confidence climbs faster than their competence, and confidence remains higher than competence from that point on.

你可以在邓宁的一项实验中看到这种现象。实验中，人们在模拟的僵尸末日中扮演医生。当他们只见过少数受伤的受害者时，他们感知到的技能和实际技能是一致的。不幸的是，随着经验的积累，他们的自信心增长速度超过了能力的增长速度，并且从那时起，自信心一直高于能力。

This might be one of the reasons that patient mortality rates in hospitals seem to spike in July, when new residents take over. It’s not their lack of skill alone that proves hazardous; it’s their overestimation of that skill.

这或许是7月份新住院医生入职时，医院病人死亡率飙升的原因之一。造成危险的不仅仅是他们缺乏技能，而是他们高估了技能本身。

Advancing from novice to amateur can break the rethinking cycle. As we gain experience, we lose some of our humility. We take pride in making rapid progress, which promotes a false sense of mastery. That jump-starts an overconfidence cycle, preventing us from doubting what we know and being curious about what we don’t. We get trapped in a beginner’s bubble of flawed assumptions, where we’re ignorant of our own ignorance.

从新手晋升为业余爱好者可以打破这种反复思考的循环。随着经验的积累，我们会逐渐失去一些谦逊。我们会为快速进步而感到自豪，从而滋生一种虚假的精通感。这会启动一个过度自信的循环，使我们不再怀疑自己已知的知识，也不再对未知的知识保持好奇。我们被困在初学者的错误假设的泡沫中，对自身的无知一无所知。

That’s what happened in Iceland to Davíð Oddsson, whose arrogance was reinforced by cronies and unchecked by critics. He was known to surround himself with “ fiercely loyal henchmen” from school and bridge matches, and to keep a checklist of friends and enemies. Months before the meltdown, Oddsson refused help from England’s central bank. Then, at the height of the crisis, he brashly declared in public that he had no intention of covering the debts of Iceland’s banks. Two years later an independent truth commission appointed by Parliament charged him with gross negligence. Oddsson’s downfall, according to one journalist who chronicled Iceland’s financial collapse, was “ arrogance, his absolute conviction that he knew what was best for the island.”

冰岛的戴维·奥德森（Davíð Oddsson）就遭遇了这样的境遇。他的傲慢被亲信所强化，而批评者却置之不理。众所周知，他身边围绕着一群来自学校和桥牌比赛的“极其忠诚的追随者”，并且总是保存着一份朋友和敌人的清单。在金融危机爆发前几个月，奥德森拒绝了英国央行的援助。随后，在危机最严重的时候，他又当众宣布无意为冰岛银行偿还债务。两年后，议会任命的独立真相委员会指控他严重失职。据一位记录冰岛金融崩溃的记者所说，奥德森的垮台是“傲慢，是他坚信自己知道什么对冰岛最有利”。

What he lacked is a crucial nutrient for the mind: humility. The antidote to getting stuck on Mount Stupid is taking a regular dose of it. “ Arrogance is ignorance plus conviction,” blogger Tim Urban explains. “While humility is a permeable filter that absorbs life experience and converts it into knowledge and wisdom, arrogance is a rubber shield that life experience simply bounces off of.”

他缺乏的是心灵中至关重要的营养：谦逊。避免被困在愚蠢之山的解药是定期服用谦逊。“傲慢是无知加上信念，”博主蒂姆·厄本解释道。“谦逊是一块可渗透的过滤器，能够吸收生活经验，并将其转化为知识和智慧；而傲慢则是一块橡胶盾牌，生活经验很容易被它弹开。”

WHAT GOLDILOCKS GOT WRONG

金发姑娘犯了什么错误

Many people picture confidence as a seesaw. Gain too much confidence, and we tip toward arrogance. Lose too much confidence, and we become meek. This is our fear with humility: that we’ll end up having a low opinion of ourselves. We want to keep the seesaw balanced, so we go into Goldilocks mode and look for the amount of confidence that’s just right. Recently, though, I learned that this is the wrong approach.

很多人把自信比作跷跷板。过度自信会让我们变得傲慢。过度自信则会让我们变得温顺。这正是我们害怕谦卑的原因：害怕最终会低估自己。我们想让跷跷板保持平衡，于是进入了“金发姑娘模式”，寻找最合适的自信程度。然而，最近我意识到，这种做法是错误的。

Humility is often misunderstood. It’s not a matter of having low self-confidence. One of the Latin roots of humility means “from the earth.” It’s about being grounded—recognizing that we’re flawed and fallible.

谦卑常常被误解。它并非指缺乏自信。谦卑的拉丁词根之一是“来自大地”。它关乎脚踏实地——承认我们是有缺陷的，容易犯错。

Confidence is a measure of how much you believe in yourself. Evidence shows that’s distinct from how much you believe in your methods. You can be confident in your ability to achieve a goal in the future while maintaining the humility to question whether you have the right tools in the present. That’s the sweet spot of confidence.

自信衡量的是你对自己的信任程度。证据表明，自信与你对自己方法的信任程度截然不同。你可以对自己未来实现目标的能力充满信心，同时又能保持谦逊，质疑自己目前是否拥有合适的工具。这才是自信的最佳状态。

We become blinded by arrogance when we’re utterly convinced of our strengths and our strategies. We get paralyzed by doubt when we lack conviction in both. We can be consumed by an inferiority complex when we know the right method but feel uncertain about our ability to execute it. What we want to attain is confident humility: having faith in our capability while appreciating that we may not have the right solution or even be addressing the right problem. That gives us enough doubt to reexamine our old knowledge and enough confidence to pursue new insights.

当我们对自己的优势和策略深信不疑时，我们会被傲慢蒙蔽双眼。当我们对两者都缺乏信心时，我们会被怀疑所麻痹。当我们知道正确的方法，却对自己能否执行它感到不确定时，我们可能会被自卑感所吞噬。我们想要获得的是自信的谦逊：相信自己的能力，同时也意识到我们可能没有正确的解决方案，甚至没有解决正确的问题。这给了我们足够的怀疑去重新审视我们旧有的知识，也给了我们足够的信心去追求新的见解。

When Spanx founder Sara Blakely had the idea for footless pantyhose, she believed in her ability to make the idea a reality, but she was full of doubt about her current tools. Her day job was selling fax machines door-to-door, and she was aware that she didn’t know anything about fashion, retail, or manufacturing. When she was designing the prototype, she spent a week driving around to hosiery mills to ask them for help. When she couldn’t afford a law firm to apply for a patent, she read a book on the topic and filled out the application herself. Her doubt wasn’t debilitating—she was confident she could overcome the challenges in front of her. Her confidence wasn’t in her existing knowledge—it was in her capacity to learn.

当Spanx创始人萨拉·布莱克利萌生无脚连裤袜的想法时，她相信自己有能力将这个想法变成现实，但她对现有的工具却充满疑虑。她的日常工作是挨家挨户推销传真机，她深知自己对时尚、零售或制造业一无所知。在设计原型时，她花了一周时间开车前往各家袜厂寻求帮助。当她无力聘请律师事务所申请专利时，她阅读了一本相关的书籍，并自行填写了申请表。她的疑虑并没有让她灰心丧气——她相信自己能够克服眼前的挑战。她的自信并非源于现有的知识，而是源于她的学习能力。

Confident humility can be taught. In one experiment, when students read a short article about the benefits of admitting what we don’t know rather than being certain about it, their odds of seeking extra help in an area of weakness spiked from 65 to 85 percent. They were also more likely to explore opposing political views to try to learn from the other side.

自信和谦逊是可以培养的。在一项实验中，当学生们阅读一篇关于承认自己无知而非确信无疑的益处的短文时，他们在自身薄弱领域寻求额外帮助的可能性从65%飙升至85%。他们也更有可能探索对立的政治观点，试图从对方身上学习。

Confident humility doesn’t just open our minds to rethinking—it improves the quality of our rethinking. In college and graduate school, students who are willing to revise their beliefs get higher grades than their peers. In high school, students who admit when they don’t know something are rated by teachers as learning more effectively and by peers as contributing more to their teams. At the end of the academic year, they have significantly higher math grades than their more self-assured peers. Instead of just assuming they’ve mastered the material, they quiz themselves to test their understanding.

自信的谦逊不仅能让我们敞开心扉，接受反思，还能提升反思的质量。在大学和研究生院，那些愿意修正自身信念的学生比同龄人获得更高的分数。在高中，敢于承认自己不懂的学生会被老师评为学习效率更高，也会被同学评为对团队贡献更大。学年结束时，他们的数学成绩会比那些更自信的同龄人高得多。他们不会仅仅假设自己已经掌握了知识，而是会通过自测来检验自己的理解。

When adults have the confidence to acknowledge what they don’t know, they pay more attention to how strong evidence is and spend more time reading material that contradicts their opinions. In rigorous studies of leadership effectiveness across the United States and China, the most productive and innovative teams aren’t run by leaders who are confident or humble. The most effective leaders score high in both confidence and humility. Although they have faith in their strengths, they’re also keenly aware of their weaknesses. They know they need to recognize and transcend their limits if they want to push the limits of greatness.

当成年人有信心承认自己不知道的事情时，他们会更加关注证据的力度，并花更多时间阅读与自己观点相悖的材料。在美国和中国对领导力效能进行的严谨研究中，最高效、最具创新精神的团队并非由自信或谦逊的领导者领导。最高效的领导者在自信和谦逊方面都得分很高。他们虽然对自己的优势充满信心，但也敏锐地意识到自己的弱点。他们知道，如果想要突破卓越的极限，就需要认识并超越自身的局限性。

If we care about accuracy, we can’t afford to have blind spots. To get an accurate picture of our knowledge and skills, it can help to assess ourselves like scientists looking through a microscope. But one of my newly formed beliefs is that we’re sometimes better off underestimating ourselves.

如果我们注重准确性，就不能有盲点。为了准确了解我们的知识和技能，像科学家用显微镜观察一样评估自己会很有帮助。但我最近形成的一个信念是，有时候低估自己反而更好。

THE BENEFITS OF DOUBT

怀疑的好处

Just a month and a half before Iceland’s presidential election, Halla Tómasdóttir was polling at only 1 percent support. To focus on the most promising candidates, the network airing the first televised debate announced that they wouldn’t feature anyone with less than 2.5 percent of the vote. On the day of the debate, Halla ended up barely squeaking through. Over the following month her popularity skyrocketed. She wasn’t just a viable candidate; she was in the final four.

距离冰岛总统大选仅一个半月，哈拉·托马斯多蒂尔（Halla Tómasdóttir）的支持率仅为1%。为了将焦点放在最有希望的候选人身上，播出首场电视辩论的电视台宣布，不会播出得票率低于2.5%的候选人。辩论当天，哈拉最终勉强胜出。但在接下来的一个月里，她的支持率一路飙升。她不仅是一位有希望的候选人，还进入了最终四强。

A few years later, when I invited her to speak to my class, Halla mentioned that the psychological fuel that propelled her meteoric rise was none other than impostor syndrome. Feeling like an impostor is typically viewed as a bad thing, and for good reason—a chronic sense of being unworthy can breed misery, crush motivation, and hold us back from pursuing our ambitions.

几年后，我邀请哈拉来我的班上演讲。她提到，推动她迅速崛起的心理动力正是“冒名顶替综合症”。觉得自己像个冒名顶替者通常被视为一件坏事，这并非没有道理——长期的自卑感会滋生痛苦，扼杀动力，阻碍我们追求抱负。

From time to time, though, a less crippling sense of doubt waltzes into many of our minds. Some surveys suggest that more than half the people you know have felt like impostors at some point in their careers. It’s thought to be especially common among women and marginalized groups. Strangely, it also seems to be particularly pronounced among high achievers.

然而，时不时地，一种不那么令人难以忍受的怀疑感会闯入我们许多人的心中。一些调查显示，你认识的人中，超过一半的人在职业生涯的某个阶段都曾感到自己像个骗子。这种感觉在女性和边缘群体中尤为常见。奇怪的是，这种感觉在高成就者中似乎也尤为明显。

I’ve taught students who earned patents before they could drink and became chess masters before they could drive, but these same individuals still wrestle with insecurity and constantly question their abilities. The standard explanation for their accomplishments is that they succeed in spite of their doubts, but what if their success is actually driven in part by those doubts?

我教过一些学生，他们还没学会喝酒就获得了专利，还没学会开车就成为了象棋大师，但这些人仍然饱受不安全感的折磨，不断质疑自己的能力。他们取得成就的标准解释是，尽管心存疑虑，但他们最终还是成功了。但如果他们的成功实际上部分源于这些疑虑呢？

To find out, Basima Tewfik—then a doctoral student at Wharton, now an MIT professor—recruited a group of medical students who were preparing to begin their clinical rotations. She had them interact for more than half an hour with actors who had been trained to play the role of patients presenting symptoms of various diseases. Basima observed how the medical students treated the patients—and also tracked whether they made the right diagnoses.

为了找到答案，当时还是沃顿商学院博士生、现任麻省理工学院教授的巴西玛·特维菲克（Basima Tewfik）招募了一群即将开始临床轮转的医学院学生。她让他们与经过训练的演员互动了半个多小时，这些演员会扮演各种疾病症状的患者。巴西玛观察了医学院学生如何治疗患者，并追踪他们是否做出了正确的诊断。

A week earlier the students had answered a survey about how often they entertained impostor thoughts like I am not as qualified as others think I am and People important to me think I am more capable than I think I am . Those who self-identified as impostors didn’t do any worse in their diagnoses, and they did significantly better when it came to bedside manner—they were rated as more empathetic, respectful, and professional, as well as more effective in asking questions and sharing information. In another study, Basima found a similar pattern with investment professionals: the more often they felt like impostors, the higher their performance reviews from their supervisors four months later.

一周前，学生们回答了一项调查，调查内容是他们多久会产生“冒名顶替者”的想法，例如“我没有别人想象的那么有资格”以及“对我而言重要的人认为我比我想象的更有能力”。那些自认为是“冒名顶替者”的学生在诊断结果上并没有恶化，而且在临床态度方面表现得更好——他们被评价为更有同理心、更尊重他人、更专业，并且在提问和分享信息方面也更有效率。在另一项研究中，Basima 在投资专业人士中发现了类似的模式：他们越经常感到自己是“冒名顶替者”，四个月后上司对他们的绩效评估就越高。

This evidence is new, and we still have a lot to learn about when impostor syndrome is beneficial versus when it’s detrimental. Still, it leaves me wondering if we’ve been misjudging impostor syndrome by seeing it solely as a disorder.

这是新的证据，关于冒名顶替综合征何时有益、何时有害，我们仍有许多需要研究的地方。尽管如此，它还是让我怀疑，我们是否误判了冒名顶替综合征，仅仅将其视为一种疾病。

When our impostor fears crop up, the usual advice is to ignore them—give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. Instead, we might be better off embracing those fears, because they can give us three benefits of doubt.

当我们的“冒名顶替者”恐惧突然出现时，通常的建议是忽略它们——给自己一个“怀疑的好处”。然而，我们或许最好拥抱这些恐惧，因为它们能给我们带来三种“怀疑的好处”。

The first upside of feeling like an impostor is that it can motivate us to work harder. It’s probably not helpful when we’re deciding whether to start a race, but once we’ve stepped up to the starting line, it gives us the drive to keep running to the end so that we can earn our place among the finalists. * In some of my own research across call centers, military and government teams, and nonprofits, I’ve found that confidence can make us complacent. If we never worry about letting other people down, we’re more likely to actually do so. When we feel like impostors, we think we have something to prove. Impostors may be the last to jump in, but they may also be the last to bail out.

感觉自己像个冒名顶替者的第一个好处是，它能激励我们更加努力。在我们决定是否开始一场比赛时，这种感觉可能没什么帮助，但一旦我们站上起跑线，它就会给我们动力，让我们跑到终点，最终赢得决赛席位。*我在呼叫中心、军事和政府团队以及非营利组织进行的一些研究中发现，自信会让我们自满。如果我们从不担心让别人失望，我们就更有可能真的失望。当我们感觉自己像个冒名顶替者时，我们会觉得自己需要证明什么。冒名顶替者可能是最后一个跳上去的人，但他们也可能是最后一个退出的人。

Second, impostor thoughts can motivate us to work smarter. When we don’t believe we’re going to win, we have nothing to lose by rethinking our strategy. Remember that total beginners don’t fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Feeling like an impostor puts us in a beginner’s mindset, leading us to question assumptions that others have taken for granted.

其次，冒名顶替者的想法可以激励我们更聪明地工作。当我们不相信自己会成功时，重新思考策略对我们不会有任何损失。记住，完全的初学者不会成为邓宁-克鲁格效应的受害者。感觉自己像个冒名顶替者会让我们陷入初学者的心态，促使我们质疑别人习以为常的假设。

Third, feeling like an impostor can make us better learners. Having some doubts about our knowledge and skills takes us off a pedestal, encouraging us to seek out insights from others. As psychologist Elizabeth Krumrei Mancuso and her colleagues write, “ Learning requires the humility to realize one has something to learn.”

第三，感觉自己像个冒名顶替者可以让我们更好地学习。对自己的知识和技能有所怀疑，会让我们放下架子，鼓励我们向他人寻求见解。正如心理学家伊丽莎白·克鲁姆雷·曼库索和她的同事所写：“学习需要谦逊，才能意识到自己还有东西要学。”

Some evidence on this dynamic comes from a study by another of our former doctoral students at Wharton, Danielle Tussing—now a professor at SUNY Buffalo. Danielle gathered her data in a hospital where the leadership role of charge nurse is rotated between shifts, which means that nurses end up at the helm even if they have doubts about their capabilities. Nurses who felt some hesitations about assuming the mantle were actually more effective leaders, in part because they were more likely to seek out second opinions from colleagues. They saw themselves on a level playing field, and they knew that much of what they lacked in experience and expertise they could make up by listening. There’s no clearer case of that than Halla Tómasdóttir.

这种动态的一些证据来自我们另一位沃顿商学院前博士生、现任纽约州立大学布法罗分校教授的丹妮尔·图辛（Danielle Tussing）的一项研究。丹妮尔在一家医院收集数据，该医院的护士长领导职位在轮班之间轮换，这意味着即使护士对自己的能力有所怀疑，最终也会掌舵。那些对承担这一责任有所犹豫的护士实际上是更有效的领导者，部分原因是她们更有可能征求同事的意见。她们认为自己处于一个公平的竞争环境中，并且知道通过倾听可以弥补自身在经验和专业知识方面的不足。哈拉·托马斯多蒂尔（Halla Tómasdóttir）就是一个最明显的例子。

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY HUMILITY

非凡谦逊联盟

When I sat down with Halla, she told me that in the past her doubts had been debilitating. She took them as a sign that she lacked the ability to succeed. Now she had reached a point of confident humility, and she interpreted doubts differently: they were a cue that she needed to improve her tools.

当我和哈拉坐下来聊天时，她告诉我，过去她的疑虑让她感到无力。她认为这是她缺乏成功能力的标志。现在，她已经达到了自信谦逊的境界，对疑虑有了不同的解读：疑虑是她需要改进自身能力的信号。

Plenty of evidence suggests that confidence is just as often the result of progress as the cause of it. We don’t have to wait for our confidence to rise to achieve challenging goals. We can build it through achieving challenging goals. “I have come to welcome impostor syndrome as a good thing: it’s fuel to do more, try more,” Halla says. “I’ve learned to use it to my advantage. I actually thrive on the growth that comes from the self-doubt.”

大量证据表明，自信既是进步的结果，也是进步的根源。我们不必等到自信提升后再去实现具有挑战性的目标。我们可以通过实现具有挑战性的目标来建立自信。“我逐渐接受‘冒名顶替综合症’的益处：它激励我做得更多，尝试更多，”哈拉说。“我已经学会了如何利用它。事实上，我正是在自我怀疑中成长起来的。”

While other candidates were content to rely on the usual media coverage, Halla’s uncertainty about her tools made her eager to rethink the way campaigns were run. She worked harder and smarter, staying up late to personally answer social media messages. She held Facebook Live sessions where voters could ask her anything, and learned to use Snapchat to reach young people. Deciding she had nothing to lose, she went where few presidential candidates had gone before: instead of prosecuting her opponents, she ran a positive campaign. How much worse can it get? she thought. It was part of why she resonated so strongly with voters: they were tired of watching candidates smear one another and delighted to see a candidate treat her competitors with respect.

其他候选人满足于依赖惯常的媒体报道，而哈拉对自己工具的不确定性，促使她渴望重新思考竞选活动的运作方式。她更加努力，也更加聪明，熬夜亲自回复社交媒体信息。她举办Facebook Live直播，选民可以向她提问任何问题，并学会了使用Snapchat接触年轻人。她认为自己没有什么可失去的，于是选择了以往很少有总统候选人尝试过的方式：她没有起诉对手，而是积极地开展竞选活动。她心想，情况还能更糟吗？这也是她与选民产生强烈共鸣的原因之一：选民们厌倦了看到候选人互相抹黑，乐于看到候选人尊重竞争对手。

Uncertainty primes us to ask questions and absorb new ideas. It protects us against the Dunning-Kruger effect. “Impostor syndrome always keeps me on my toes and growing because I never think I know it all,” Halla reflects, sounding more like a scientist than a politician. “Maybe impostor syndrome is needed for change. Impostors rarely say, ‘This is how we do things around here.’ They don’t say, ‘This is the right way.’ I was so eager to learn and grow that I asked everyone for advice on how I could do things differently.” Although she doubted her tools, she had confidence in herself as a learner. She understood that knowledge is best sought from experts, but creativity and wisdom can come from anywhere.

不确定性促使我们提出问题，吸收新想法。它保护我们免受邓宁-克鲁格效应的影响。“冒名顶替综合症总是让我保持警惕，不断成长，因为我从不认为自己无所不知，”哈拉反思道，语气更像一位科学家而非政客。“也许冒名顶替综合症正是变革的必要条件。冒名顶替者很少会说‘我们这里就是这样做的’。他们不会说‘这是正确的方法’。我如此渴望学习和成长，以至于我向所有人征求建议，看看如何才能以不同的方式做事。”尽管她对自己的工具有所怀疑，但她对自己作为学习者的自信十足。她明白，知识最好从专家那里获取，但创造力和智慧可以来自任何地方。

Iceland’s presidential election came down to Halla, Davíð Oddsson, and two other men. The three men all enjoyed more media coverage than Halla throughout the campaign, including front-page interviews, which she never received. They also had bigger campaign budgets. Yet on election day, Halla stunned her country—and herself—by winning more than a quarter of the vote.

冰岛总统大选最终在哈拉、达维德·奥德松（Davíð Oddsson）和另外两名男子之间展开。这三名男子在整个竞选过程中都比哈拉获得了更多的媒体报道，包括头版采访，而哈拉从未获得过这些采访。他们的竞选预算也更大。然而，在选举日，哈拉赢得了超过四分之一的选票，震惊了她的国家——也震惊了她自己。

She didn’t land the presidency; she came in second. Her 28 percent fell shy of the victor’s 39 percent. But Halla trounced Davíð Oddsson, who finished fourth, with less than 14 percent. Based on her trajectory and momentum, it’s not crazy to imagine that with a few more weeks, she could have won.

她没能赢得总统大选，最终屈居第二。她的支持率仅为28%，低于获胜者的39%。但哈拉最终击败了排名第四的达维德·奥德森，后者的支持率不到14%。鉴于她的竞选轨迹和势头，不难想象，如果再多几周，她就能获胜。

Great thinkers don’t harbor doubts because they’re impostors. They maintain doubts because they know we’re all partially blind and they’re committed to improving their sight. They don’t boast about how much they know; they marvel at how little they understand. They’re aware that each answer raises new questions, and the quest for knowledge is never finished. A mark of lifelong learners is recognizing that they can learn something from everyone they meet.

伟大的思想家不会因为自己是冒名顶替者而心存疑虑。他们保持怀疑，是因为他们知道我们都是部分盲人，而他们致力于提升自己的视力。他们不会吹嘘自己知识渊博；他们惊叹于自己理解的如此之少。他们深知，每个答案都会引发新的问题，而对知识的探索永无止境。终身学习者的标志之一，就是认识到自己可以从遇到的每个人身上学到一些东西。

Arrogance leaves us blind to our weaknesses. Humility is a reflective lens: it helps us see them clearly. Confident humility is a corrective lens: it enables us to overcome those weaknesses.

傲慢让我们看不到自己的弱点。谦逊是一面反射镜，它能帮助我们看清自己的弱点。自信的谦逊是一面矫正镜，它能让我们克服这些弱点。

CHAPTER 3 第三章

The Joy of Being Wrong

犯错的喜悦

The Thrill of Not Believing Everything You Think

不相信一切想法的刺激

I have a degree from Harvard. Whenever I’m wrong, the world makes a little less sense.

—Dr. Frasier Crane, played by Kelsey Grammer

我拥有哈佛大学的学位。每当我犯错，这个世界就变得不那么合理了。——弗雷泽·克兰博士（凯尔希·格兰莫饰演）

In the fall of 1959, a prominent psychologist welcomed new participants into a wildly unethical study. He had handpicked a group of Harvard sophomores to join a series of experiments that would run through the rest of their time in college. The students volunteered to spend a couple of hours a week contributing to knowledge about how personality develops and how psychological problems can be solved. They had no idea that they were actually signing up to have their beliefs attacked.

1959年秋天，一位著名心理学家邀请新参与者参与一项极不道德的研究。他精心挑选了一群哈佛大学二年级学生，参与一系列实验，这些实验将持续他们整个大学生涯。学生们自愿每周花几个小时，为人格发展和心理问题解决方式的研究贡献力量。他们完全没有意识到，自己实际上是在让自己的信仰遭受攻击。

The researcher, Henry Murray, had originally trained as a physician and biochemist. After becoming a distinguished psychologist, he was disillusioned that his field paid little attention to how people navigate difficult interactions, so he decided to create them in his own lab. He gave students a month to write out their personal philosophy of life, including their core values and guiding principles. When they showed up to submit their work, they were paired with another student who had done the same exercise. They would have a day or two to read each other’s philosophies, and then they would be filmed debating them. The experience would be much more intense than they anticipated.

研究员亨利·默里原本是一名医生和生物化学家。在成为杰出的心理学家后，他对自己所在领域鲜少关注人们如何应对艰难的互动感到失望，于是决定在自己的实验室里进行这样的实验。他给学生们一个月的时间，写下他们的个人人生哲学，包括核心价值观和指导原则。当他们提交作业时，会被安排与另一位做过同样练习的学生配对。他们将有一两天的时间互相阅读对方的人生哲学，然后拍摄他们辩论的过程。这段经历将比他们预想的更加深刻。

Murray modeled the study on psychological assessments he had developed for spies in World War II. As a lieutenant colonel, Murray had been recruited to vet potential agents for the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA. To gauge how candidates would handle pressure, he sent them down to a basement to be interrogated with a bright light shining in their faces. The examiner would wait for an inconsistency in their accounts to pop up and then scream, “You’re a liar!” Some candidates quit on the spot; others were reduced to tears. Those who withstood the onslaught got the gig.

默里以二战期间他为间谍开发的心理评估方法为基础，开展了这项研究。作为一名中校，默里曾被招募为战略情报局（中央情报局的前身）筛选潜在的特工。为了评估候选人如何应对压力，他把他们送到地下室，用强光照射他们的脸进行审讯。审讯员会等到他们的陈述中出现任何矛盾之处，然后大喊：“你撒谎！”有些候选人当场辞职；另一些人则被打得落花流水。那些经受住压力的人最终得到了这份工作。

Now Murray was ready for a more systematic study of reactions to stress. He had carefully screened students to create a sample that included a wide range of personalities and mental health profiles. He gave them code names based on their character traits, including Drill, Quartz, Locust, Hinge, and Lawful—more on him later.

现在，默里准备进行一项更系统的压力反应研究。他仔细筛选了学生，创建了一个涵盖各种性格和心理健康状况的样本。他根据他们的性格特征给他们起了代号，包括“钻头”（Drill）、“石英”（Quartz）、“蝗虫”（Locust）、“铰链”（Hinge）和“守序”（Lawful）——稍后会详细介绍。

When students arrived for the debate, they discovered that their sparring partner was not a peer but a law student. What they didn’t know was that the law student was in cahoots with the research team: his task was to spend eighteen minutes launching an aggressive assault on their worldviews. Murray called it a “stressful interpersonal disputation,” having directed the law student to make the participants angry and anxious with a “mode of attack” that was “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive.” The poor students sweated and shouted as they struggled to defend their ideals.

当学生们到达辩论场地时，他们发现他们的辩论对手并非同龄人，而是一名法学院学生。他们不知道的是，这名法学院学生与研究团队串通一气：他的任务是花18分钟对他们的世界观发起猛烈攻击。默里称之为“紧张的人际辩论”，他指示这名法学院学生用一种“激烈、全面且带有人身攻击性的”攻击方式，激怒并激怒参与者。可怜的学生们汗流浃背，大声叫喊，努力捍卫自己的理想。

The pain didn’t stop there. In the weeks that followed, the students were invited back to the lab to discuss the films of their own interactions. They watched themselves grimacing and stringing together incoherent sentences. All in all, they spent about eight hours reliving those humiliating eighteen minutes. A quarter century later, when the participants reflected on the experience, it was clear that many had found it agonizing. Drill described feeling “unabating rage.” Locust recalled his bewilderment, anger, chagrin, and discomfort. “They have deceived me, telling me there was going to be a discussion, when in fact there was an attack,” he wrote. “How could they have done this to me; what is the point of this?”

痛苦远不止于此。接下来的几周，学生们被邀请回到实验室，讨论他们互动的录像。他们看着自己愁眉苦脸，语无伦次地说着不连贯的句子。总而言之，他们花了大约八个小时重温那羞辱的十八分钟。四分之一个世纪后，当参与者们回忆起这段经历时，显然很多人都觉得它痛苦不堪。德里尔形容自己感到“怒火中烧”。洛克斯特回忆起当时的困惑、愤怒、懊恼和不适。“他们欺骗了我，告诉我要进行讨论，但实际上他们只是在攻击我，”他写道。“他们怎么能这样对我？这到底有什么意义？”

Other participants had a strikingly different response: they actually seemed to get a kick out of being forced to rethink their beliefs. “ Some may have found the experience mildly discomforting, in that their cherished (and in my case, at least, sophomoric) philosophies were challenged in an aggressive manner,” one participant remembers. “But it was hardly an experience that would blight one for a week, let alone a life.” Another described the whole series of events as “highly agreeable.” A third went so far as to call it “fun.”

其他参与者的反应截然不同：他们似乎真的对被迫重新思考自己的信仰感到兴奋。“有些人可能觉得这种经历有点不舒服，因为他们珍视的（至少就我而言，是幼稚的）哲学受到了如此激烈的挑战，”一位参与者回忆道。“但这绝不是什么会让人煎熬一周，更别说一生的经历了。”另一位参与者形容这一系列事件“非常令人愉快”。第三位参与者甚至称之为“有趣”。

Ever since I first read about the participants who reacted enthusiastically, I’ve been fascinated by what made them tick. How did they manage to enjoy the experience of having their beliefs eviscerated—and how can the rest of us learn to do the same?

自从我第一次读到那些参与者热情洋溢的文章以来，我就一直好奇，是什么让他们如此执着。他们是如何享受信仰被摧毁的这种体验的？我们其他人又该如何学习呢？

Since the records of the study are still sealed and the vast majority of the participants haven’t revealed their identities, I did the next best thing: I went searching for people like them. I found a Nobel Prize–winning scientist and two of the world’s top election forecasters. They aren’t just comfortable being wrong; they actually seem to be thrilled by it. I think they can teach us something about how to be more graceful and accepting in moments when we discover that our beliefs might not be true. The goal is not to be wrong more often. It’s to recognize that we’re all wrong more often than we’d like to admit, and the more we deny it, the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves.

由于研究记录仍处于保密状态，且绝大多数参与者尚未透露身份，我做了退而求其次的选择：去寻找像他们这样的人。我找到了一位诺贝尔奖得主和两位世界顶级选举预测专家。他们不仅乐于犯错，而且似乎为此感到兴奋。我认为他们可以教给我们一些东西，让我们在发现自己的信念可能不成立时，能够更加坦然地接受。目标并非犯错次数增多，而是认识到我们犯错的次数比我们愿意承认的要多，我们越是否认，就越是给自己挖了个深坑。

THE DICTATOR POLICING YOUR THOUGHTS

独裁者监视你的思想

When our son was five, he was excited to learn that his uncle was expecting a child. My wife and I both predicted a boy, and so did our son. A few weeks later, we found out the baby would be a girl. When we broke the news to our son, he burst into tears. “Why are you crying?” I asked. “Is it because you were hoping your new cousin would be a boy?”

儿子五岁时，得知叔叔要生孩子，兴奋不已。我和妻子都预测会是个男孩，儿子也一样。几周后，我们得知是个女孩。当我们把这个消息告诉儿子时，他突然哭了起来。“你为什么哭？”我问，“是因为你希望你的新表弟是个男孩吗？”

“No!” he shouted, pounding his fists on the floor. “Because we were wrong!”

“不！”他一边喊，一边用拳头捶打地板。“因为我们错了！”

I explained that being wrong isn’t always a bad thing. It can be a sign that we’ve learned something new—and that discovery itself can be a delight.

我解释说，犯错并不总是坏事。犯错也可能是我们学到新东西的标志——而发现本身就是一种乐趣。

This realization didn’t come naturally to me. Growing up, I was determined to be right. In second grade I corrected my teacher for misspelling the word lightning as lightening . When trading baseball cards I would rattle off statistics from recent games as proof that the price guide was valuing players inaccurately. My friends found this annoying and started calling me Mr. Facts. It got so bad that one day my best friend announced that he wouldn’t talk to me until I admitted I was wrong. It was the beginning of my journey to become more accepting of my own fallibility.

这种认识并非我自然而然地形成的。从小到大，我都执着于坚持正确。二年级时，我纠正了老师把“lightning”（闪电）拼错成“lightening”（闪电）的举动。在交换棒球卡的时候，我会滔滔不绝地列举最近比赛的数据，以此来证明价格指南对球员的估值不准确。我的朋友们觉得这很烦人，开始叫我“事实先生”。情况变得非常糟糕，以至于有一天，我最好的朋友宣布，除非我承认自己错了，否则他不会再跟我说话。这开启了我更加接纳自身缺陷的旅程。

In a classic paper, sociologist Murray Davis argued that when ideas survive, it’s not because they’re true—it’s because they’re interesting. What makes an idea interesting is that it challenges our weakly held opinions. Did you know that the moon might originally have formed inside a vaporous Earth out of magma rain? That a narwhal’s tusk is actually a tooth? When an idea or assumption doesn’t matter deeply to us, we’re often excited to question it. The natural sequence of emotions is surprise (“Really?”) followed by curiosity (“Tell me more!”) and thrill (“Whoa!”). To paraphrase a line attributed to Isaac Asimov, great discoveries often begin not with “Eureka!” but with “That’s funny . . .”

社会学家默里·戴维斯在一篇经典论文中指出，思想之所以能够流传下来，并非因为它们正确，而是因为它们有趣。一个思想之所以有趣，是因为它挑战了我们薄弱的固有观念。你知道吗？月球最初可能是由岩浆雨在气态的地球内部形成的？独角鲸的獠牙其实是牙齿？当一个想法或假设对我们来说并不那么重要时，我们常常会兴奋地去质疑它。自然而然的情绪顺序是惊讶（“真的吗？”），接着是好奇（“告诉我更多！”），最后是激动（“哇哦！”）。套用艾萨克·阿西莫夫的一句话，伟大的发现往往不是始于“我发现了！”，而是始于“真有意思……”。

When a core belief is questioned, though, we tend to shut down rather than open up. It’s as if there’s a miniature dictator living inside our heads, controlling the flow of facts to our minds, much like Kim Jong-un controls the press in North Korea. The technical term for this in psychology is the totalitarian ego, and its job is to keep out threatening information.

然而，当核心信念受到质疑时，我们往往会封闭自己，而不是敞开心扉。就好像我们的脑袋里住着一个微型独裁者，控制着流入我们大脑的事实，就像金正恩控制朝鲜媒体一样。心理学上对此的专业术语是极权主义自我，它的作用就是将威胁性信息拒之门外。

It’s easy to see how an inner dictator comes in handy when someone attacks our character or intelligence. Those kinds of personal affronts threaten to shatter aspects of our identities that are important to us and might be difficult to change. The totalitarian ego steps in like a bodyguard for our minds, protecting our self-image by feeding us comforting lies. They’re all just jealous. You’re really, really, ridiculously good-looking. You’re on the verge of inventing the next Pet Rock. As physicist Richard Feynman quipped, “ You must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”

当有人攻击我们的人格或智力时，很容易看出内心独裁者是如何发挥作用的。这类人身攻击可能会摧毁我们身份认同中那些对我们来说很重要且可能难以改变的部分。极权主义的自我就像我们心灵的保镖一样介入，通过向我们灌输安慰性的谎言来保护我们的自我形象。他们只是嫉妒而已。你真的、真的、美得令人难以置信。你即将发明下一块宠物石。正如物理学家理查德·费曼所言：“你不能欺骗自己——而你是最容易被欺骗的人。”

Our inner dictator also likes to take charge when our deeply held opinions are threatened. In the Harvard study of attacking students’ worldviews, the participant who had the strongest negative reaction was code-named Lawful. He came from a blue-collar background and was unusually precocious, having started college at sixteen and joined the study at seventeen. One of his beliefs was that technology was harming civilization, and he became hostile when his views were questioned. Lawful went on to become an academic, and when he penned his magnum opus, it was clear that he hadn’t changed his mind. His concerns about technology had only intensified:

当我们根深蒂固的观点受到威胁时，我们内心的独裁者也喜欢掌控一切。在哈佛大学一项关于攻击学生世界观的研究中，反应最强烈的参与者代号为“守序者”（Lawful）。他出身蓝领家庭，异常早熟，16岁上大学，17岁加入研究。他的一个信念是科技正在危害文明，当他的观点受到质疑时，他会变得充满敌意。守序者后来成为一名学者，当他写下他的巨著时，显然他并没有改变自己的想法。他对科技的担忧只是愈演愈烈：

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities . . . to physical suffering as well . . . and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

工业革命及其后果对人类来说是一场灾难。它极大地提高了我们这些生活在“发达”国家的人的预期寿命，但也破坏了社会稳定，使生活变得毫无意义，使人类遭受屈辱……也遭受了身体上的痛苦……并且对自然界造成了严重的破坏。

That kind of conviction is a common response to threats. Neuroscientists find that when our core beliefs are challenged, it can trigger the amygdala, the primitive “lizard brain” that breezes right past cool rationality and activates a hot fight-or-flight response. The anger and fear are visceral: it feels as if we’ve been punched in the mind. The totalitarian ego comes to the rescue with mental armor. We become preachers or prosecutors striving to convert or condemn the unenlightened. “ Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses,” journalist Elizabeth Kolbert writes, but “the positions we’re blind about are our own.”

这种信念是应对威胁的常见反应。神经科学家发现，当我们的核心信念受到挑战时，它会触发杏仁核，也就是原始的“蜥蜴脑”，它会轻易地超越冷静的理性，激活激烈的“战斗或逃跑”反应。愤怒和恐惧是发自内心的：感觉就像被人击中了大脑。极权主义的自我会用精神盔甲来拯救我们。我们变成了传教士或检察官，努力去改变或谴责那些未开化的人。记者伊丽莎白·科尔伯特写道：“面对别人的观点，我们很擅长发现其中的弱点，但那些我们视而不见的立场，其实是我们自己的。”

I find this odd, because we weren’t born with our opinions. Unlike our height or raw intelligence, we have full control over what we believe is true. We choose our views, and we can choose to rethink them any time we want. This should be a familiar task, because we have a lifetime of evidence that we’re wrong on a regular basis. I was sure I’d finish a draft of this chapter by Friday. I was certain the cereal with the toucan on the box was Fruit Loops, but I just noticed the box says Froot Loops. I was sure I put the milk back in the fridge last night, but strangely it’s sitting on the counter this morning.

我觉得这很奇怪，因为我们的观点并非生来就有。与身高或智力不同，我们完全可以掌控自己认为正确的东西。我们选择自己的观点，并且可以随时选择重新思考。这应该是一项很常见的任务，因为我们一生中都有证据证明自己经常犯错。我确信自己会在周五之前完成本章的草稿。我确信盒子上印着巨嘴鸟的麦片是水果圈，但我刚注意到盒子上写着“水果圈”。我确信昨晚把牛奶放回了冰箱，但奇怪的是，今天早上它却放在了柜台上。

The inner dictator manages to prevail by activating an overconfidence cycle. First, our wrong opinions are shielded in filter bubbles, where we feel pride when we see only information that supports our convictions. Then our beliefs are sealed in echo chambers, where we hear only from people who intensify and validate them. Although the resulting fortress can appear impenetrable, there’s a growing community of experts who are determined to break through.

内心的独裁者通过激活过度自信的循环来获得胜利。首先，我们的错误观点被屏蔽在过滤气泡中，当我们只看到支持我们信念的信息时，我们就会感到自豪。然后，我们的信念被封存在回音室里，我们只会听到那些强化和证实这些信念的人的声音。尽管由此产生的堡垒看似坚不可摧，但越来越多的专家群体决心突破它。

ATTACHMENT ISSUES

依恋问题

Not long ago I gave a speech at a conference about my research on givers, takers, and matchers. I was studying whether generous, selfish, or fair people were more productive in jobs like sales and engineering. One of the attendees was Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize–winning psychologist who has spent much of his career demonstrating how flawed our intuitions are. He told me afterward that he was surprised by my finding that givers had higher rates of failure than takers and matchers—but higher rates of success, too.

不久前，我在一个会议上发表了关于给予者、索取者和互利者研究的演讲。我当时的研究对象是慷慨、自私还是公平的人，在销售和工程等工作中效率更高。诺贝尔奖得主、心理学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼是当时的一位与会者，他的大部分职业生涯都在证明我们的直觉是多么的有缺陷。会后，他告诉我，我的研究结果让他感到惊讶：给予者的失败率比索取者和互利者更高，但成功率也更高。

When you read a study that surprises you, how do you react? Many people would get defensive, searching for flaws in the study’s design or the statistical analysis. Danny did the opposite. His eyes lit up, and a huge grin appeared on his face. “That was wonderful,” he said. “I was wrong.”

当你读到一项让你吃惊的研究时，你会作何反应？很多人会采取防御态度，寻找研究设计或统计分析中的缺陷。丹尼却恰恰相反。他的眼睛亮了起来，脸上露出了灿烂的笑容。“太棒了，”他说，“我错了。”

Later, I sat down with Danny for lunch and asked him about his reaction. It looked a lot to me like the joy of being wrong—his eyes twinkled as if he was having fun. He said that in his eighty-five years, no one had pointed that out before, but yes, he genuinely enjoys discovering that he was wrong, because it means he is now less wrong than before.

后来，我和丹尼一起吃午饭，问他当时的反应。在我看来，这很像是犯错后的喜悦——他的眼睛闪闪发光，仿佛很开心。他说，在他八十五岁的时候，从来没有人指出过这一点，但他确实很享受发现自己犯错的过程，因为这意味着他现在犯错的次数比以前少了。

I knew the feeling. In college, what first attracted me to social science was reading studies that clashed with my expectations; I couldn’t wait to tell my roommates about all the assumptions I’d been rethinking. In my first independent research project, I tested some predictions of my own, and more than a dozen of my hypotheses turned out to be false. * It was a major lesson in intellectual humility, but I wasn’t devastated. I felt an immediate rush of excitement. Discovering I was wrong felt joyful because it meant I’d learned something. As Danny told me, “Being wrong is the only way I feel sure I’ve learned anything.”

我体会过这种感觉。大学时，社会科学最初吸引我的地方在于阅读那些与我预期相悖的研究；我迫不及待地想告诉室友们我一直在重新思考的那些假设。在我的第一个独立研究项目中，我检验了自己的一些预测，结果十几个假设都被证明是错误的。*这对我来说是一次重要的知识谦逊课，但我并没有感到沮丧。我立刻感到一阵兴奋。发现自己错了，这让我感到欣喜，因为这意味着我学到了一些东西。正如丹尼告诉我的那样：“只有犯错，我才能确信自己学到了一些东西。”

Danny isn’t interested in preaching, prosecuting, or politicking. He’s a scientist devoted to the truth. When I asked him how he stays in that mode, he said he refuses to let his beliefs become part of his identity. “I change my mind at a speed that drives my collaborators crazy,” he explained. “My attachment to my ideas is provisional. There’s no unconditional love for them.”

丹尼对说教、起诉或政治活动不感兴趣。他是一位致力于真理的科学家。当我问他如何保持这种状态时，他说他拒绝让自己的信仰成为自己身份的一部分。“我改变想法的速度快得让我的同事们抓狂，”他解释道。“我对我的想法的执着是暂时的。我对它们没有无条件的爱。”

Attachment. That’s what keeps us from recognizing when our opinions are off the mark and rethinking them. To unlock the joy of being wrong, we need to detach. I’ve learned that two kinds of detachment are especially useful: detaching your present from your past and detaching your opinions from your identity.

执着。正是这种执着阻碍了我们认识到自己的观点何时偏离正轨并重新思考。为了体验犯错的乐趣，我们需要抽离。我了解到两种抽离尤其有用：将你的现在与你的过去分离开来，以及将你的观点与你的身份分离开来。

Let’s start with detaching your present from your past. In psychology, one way of measuring the similarity between the person you are right now and your former self is to ask: which pair of circles best describes how you see yourself?

让我们先把现在和过去区分开来。在心理学中，衡量现在的你和过去的你之间相似度的一个方法是问：哪一对圆圈最能描述你对自己的看法？

In the moment, separating your past self from your current self can be unsettling. Even positive changes can lead to negative emotions; evolving your identity can leave you feeling derailed and disconnected. Over time, though, rethinking who you are appears to become mentally healthy—as long as you can tell a coherent story about how you got from past to present you. In one study, when people felt detached from their past selves, they became less depressed over the course of the year. When you feel as if your life is changing direction, and you’re in the process of shifting who you are, it’s easier to walk away from foolish beliefs you once held.

当下，将过去的自己与现在的自己割裂开来可能会令人不安。即使是积极的改变也可能导致负面情绪；身份认同的演变会让你感到脱轨和失联。然而，随着时间的推移，重新思考自我似乎有益于心理健康——只要你能清晰地讲述自己是如何从过去走到现在的。一项研究表明，当人们感到与过去的自己割裂时，他们的抑郁情绪会在一年内有所缓解。当你感觉自己的生活正在改变方向，并且正在经历自我转变时，你更容易摆脱曾经持有的愚蠢信念。

My past self was Mr. Facts—I was too fixated on knowing. Now I’m more interested in finding out what I don’t know. As Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio told me, “ If you don’t look back at yourself and think, ‘Wow, how stupid I was a year ago,’ then you must not have learned much in the last year.”

过去的我是个“事实先生”——我太执着于求知。现在我更感兴趣的是发现我不知道的东西。正如桥水基金创始人雷·达利欧告诉我的那样：“如果你不回头想想，‘哇，一年前的我真是太蠢了’，那么你去年肯定没学到什么。”

The second kind of detachment is separating your opinions from your identity. I’m guessing you wouldn’t want to see a doctor whose identity is Professional Lobotomist, send your kids to a teacher whose identity is Corporal Punisher, or live in a town where the police chief’s identity is Stop-and-Frisker. Once upon a time, all of these practices were seen as reasonable and effective.

第二种超脱是将你的观点与你的身份区分开来。我猜你肯定不想去看一个身份是“专业脑白质切除术师”的医生，不想送孩子去一个身份是“体罚者”的老师那里，也不想住在一个警察局长身份是“拦截搜身”的城镇。曾几何时，所有这些做法都被认为是合理有效的。

Most of us are accustomed to defining ourselves in terms of our beliefs, ideas, and ideologies. This can become a problem when it prevents us from changing our minds as the world changes and knowledge evolves. Our opinions can become so sacred that we grow hostile to the mere thought of being wrong, and the totalitarian ego leaps in to silence counterarguments, squash contrary evidence, and close the door on learning.

我们大多数人习惯于用自己的信仰、观念和意识形态来定义自己。当它阻碍我们随着世界的变化和知识的演进而改变想法时，就会成为一个问题。我们的观点可能变得如此神圣，以至于我们对任何错误的想法都充满敌意，极权主义的自我意识就会跳出来压制反驳，压制相反的证据，关闭学习的大门。

Who you are should be a question of what you value, not what you believe. Values are your core principles in life—they might be excellence and generosity, freedom and fairness, or security and integrity. Basing your identity on these kinds of principles enables you to remain open-minded about the best ways to advance them. You want the doctor whose identity is protecting health, the teacher whose identity is helping students learn, and the police chief whose identity is promoting safety and justice. When they define themselves by values rather than opinions, they buy themselves the flexibility to update their practices in light of new evidence.

你是谁，应该取决于你珍视什么，而不是你的信仰。价值观是你人生的核心原则——它们可能是卓越与慷慨，自由与公平，或是安全与正直。将你的身份认同建立在这些原则之上，能让你对推进这些原则的最佳途径保持开放的心态。你希望医生的身份认同是保护健康，老师的身份认同是帮助学生学习，警察局长的身份认同是促进安全和正义。当他们用价值观而非观点来定义自己时，他们就拥有了根据新证据更新自身实践的灵活性。

THE YODA EFFECT: “YOU MUST UNLEARN WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED”

尤达效应：“你必须忘记你所学的东西”

On my quest to find people who enjoy discovering they were wrong, a trusted colleague told me I had to meet Jean-Pierre Beugoms. He’s in his late forties, and he’s the sort of person who’s honest to a fault; he tells the truth even if it hurts. When his son was a toddler, they were watching a space documentary together, and Jean-Pierre casually mentioned that the sun would one day turn into a red giant and engulf the Earth. His son was not amused. Between tears, he cried, “But I love this planet!” Jean-Pierre felt so terrible that he decided to bite his tongue instead of mentioning threats that could prevent the Earth from even lasting that long.

在我寻找那些乐于发现自己错误的人的过程中，一位值得信赖的同事告诉我，一定要见见让-皮埃尔·博贡。他年近五十，是那种坦诚到极致的人；即使真相令人难受，他也会说。他儿子还在蹒跚学步的时候，他们一起看一部太空纪录片，让-皮埃尔随口提到，太阳有一天会变成一颗红巨星，吞噬地球。儿子听了很不高兴，泪流满面地喊道：“但我爱这个星球！”让-皮埃尔感到难过，决定忍住不说，不提那些可能让地球无法长久生存下去的威胁。

Back in the 1990s, Jean-Pierre had a hobby of collecting the predictions that pundits made on the news and scoring his own forecasts against them. Eventually he started competing in forecasting tournaments—international contests hosted by Good Judgment, where people try to predict the future. It’s a daunting task; there’s an old saying that historians can’t even predict the past. A typical tournament draws thousands of entrants from around the world to anticipate big political, economic, and technological events. The questions are time-bound, with measurable, specific results. Will the current president of Iran still be in office in six months? Which soccer team will win the next World Cup? In the following year, will an individual or a company face criminal charges for an accident involving a self-driving vehicle?

早在20世纪90年代，让-皮埃尔就有一个爱好，那就是收集新闻评论员的预测，并用这些预测来衡量自己的预测。最终，他开始参加预测锦标赛——由“好判断”（Good Judgment）主办的国际比赛，参赛者试图预测未来。这是一项艰巨的任务；有句老话说，历史学家甚至无法预测过去。一场典型的锦标赛会吸引来自世界各地的数千名参赛者，预测重大的政治、经济和技术事件。这些问题都有时间限制，并具有可衡量的具体结果。伊朗现任总统六个月后还会在任吗？哪支足球队会赢得下一届世界杯？明年，个人或公司是否会因自动驾驶汽车事故而面临刑事指控？

Participants don’t just answer yes or no; they have to give their odds. It’s a systematic way of testing whether they know what they don’t know. They get scored months later on accuracy and calibration—earning points not just for giving the right answer, but also for having the right level of conviction. The best forecasters have confidence in their predictions that come true and doubt in their predictions that prove false.

参与者不能只回答“是”或“否”，他们必须给出概率。这是一种系统性的方法，用来测试他们是否知道自己不知道的事情。几个月后，系统会根据他们的准确性和准确性进行评分——得分不仅取决于给出正确的答案，还取决于他们拥有正确的信念。最优秀的预测者对预测成真时充满信心，对预测错误时则心存疑虑。

On November 18, 2015, Jean-Pierre registered a prediction that stunned his opponents. A day earlier, a new question had popped up in an open forecasting tournament: in July 2016, who would win the U.S. Republican presidential primary? The options were Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and none of the above. With eight months to go before the Republican National Convention, Trump was largely seen as a joke. His odds of becoming the Republican nominee were only 6 percent according to Nate Silver, the celebrated statistician behind the website FiveThirtyEight. When Jean-Pierre peered into his crystal ball, though, he decided Trump had a 68 percent chance of winning.

2015年11月18日，让-皮埃尔做出了一个令对手震惊的预测。此前一天，一场公开预测大赛中出现了一个新问题：2016年7月，谁将赢得美国共和党总统初选？答案是杰布·布什、本·卡森、特德·克鲁兹、卡莉·菲奥莉娜、马尔科·卢比奥、唐纳德·特朗普，或者以上皆非。距离共和党全国代表大会还有八个月，特朗普几乎成了笑柄。据著名统计学家、网站FiveThirtyEight的创始人内特·西尔弗估计，他成为共和党候选人的几率只有6%。然而，当让-皮埃尔透过水晶球预测特朗普获胜的几率时，他却高达68%。

Jean-Pierre didn’t just excel in predicting the results of American events. His Brexit forecasts hovered in the 50 percent range when most of his competitors thought the referendum had little chance of passing. He successfully predicted that the incumbent would lose a presidential election in Senegal, even though the base rates of reelection were extremely high and other forecasters were expecting a decisive win. And he had, in fact, pegged Trump as the favorite long before pundits and pollsters even considered him a viable contender. “It’s striking,” Jean-Pierre wrote early on, back in 2015, that so many forecasters are “still in denial about his chances.”

让-皮埃尔不仅擅长预测美国事件的结果。他的英国脱欧预测在50%左右徘徊，而当时他的大多数竞争对手认为公投通过的可能性微乎其微。他成功预测现任总统将在塞内加尔总统选举中落败，尽管当时连任的概率极高，其他预测者也预计特朗普将赢得大选。事实上，早在专家和民意调查机构认为特朗普是有力的竞争者之前，他就已经将特朗普视为热门人选。让-皮埃尔早在2015年就写道：“令人震惊的是，如此多的预测者仍然不相信他获胜的机会。”

Based on his performance, Jean-Pierre might be the world’s best election forecaster. His advantage: he thinks like a scientist. He’s passionately dispassionate. At various points in his life, Jean-Pierre has changed his political ideologies and religious beliefs. * He doesn’t come from a polling or statistics background; he’s a military historian, which means he has no stake in the way things have always been done in forecasting. The statisticians were attached to their views about how to aggregate polls. Jean-Pierre paid more attention to factors that were hard to measure and overlooked. For Trump, those included “ Mastery at manipulating the media; Name recognition; and A winning issue (i.e., immigration and ‘the wall’).”

从他的表现来看，让-皮埃尔或许是全球最顶尖的选举预测专家。他的优势在于：他像科学家一样思考，热情却又不带任何感情色彩。在人生的不同阶段，让-皮埃尔的政治意识形态和宗教信仰都发生了改变。*他并非民调或统计学出身；他是一位军事历史学家，这意味着他并不认同传统的预测方法。统计学家们固执己见，坚持自己对民调数据汇总的看法。而让-皮埃尔则更关注那些难以衡量且容易被忽视的因素。对特朗普而言，这些因素包括“精通媒体操纵；知名度；以及一个制胜的议题（例如移民和‘建墙’）。”

Even if forecasting isn’t your hobby, there’s a lot to be learned from studying how forecasters like Jean-Pierre form their opinions. My colleague Phil Tetlock finds that forecasting skill is less a matter of what we know than of how we think. When he and his collaborators studied a host of factors that predict excellence in forecasting, grit and ambition didn’t rise to the top. Neither did intelligence, which came in second. There was another factor that had roughly triple the predictive power of brainpower.

即使你对预测不感兴趣，研究像让-皮埃尔这样的预测者是如何形成观点的，也能学到很多东西。我的同事菲尔·泰特洛克发现，预测能力与其说取决于我们掌握的知识，不如说取决于我们如何思考。当他和他的同事研究一系列预测卓越预测能力的因素时，毅力和雄心壮志并没有名列前茅。智力也是如此，排在第二位。还有一个因素的预测能力大约是脑力的三倍。

The single most important driver of forecasters’ success was how often they updated their beliefs. The best forecasters went through more rethinking cycles. They had the confident humility to doubt their judgments and the curiosity to discover new information that led them to revise their predictions.

预测者成功的唯一最重要驱动力在于他们更新信念的频率。最优秀的预测者经历了更多的反思周期。他们自信谦逊，敢于质疑自己的判断，并拥有探索新信息的好奇心，从而不断修正预测。

A key question here is how much rethinking is necessary. Although the sweet spot will always vary from one person and situation to the next, the averages can give us a clue. A few years into their tournaments, typical competitors updated their predictions about twice per question. The superforecasters updated their predictions more than four times per question.

这里的一个关键问题是，需要多少次重新思考。虽然最佳时机总是因人而异，也因情况而异，但平均值可以给我们一些线索。比赛几年后，典型的参赛者每道题更新预测大约两次。而超级预测者每道题更新预测超过四次。

Think about how manageable that is. Better judgment doesn’t necessarily require hundreds or even dozens of updates. Just a few more efforts at rethinking can move the needle. It’s also worth noting, though, how unusual that level of rethinking is. How many of us can even remember the last time we admitted being wrong and revised our opinions accordingly? As journalist Kathryn Schulz observes, “ Although small amounts of evidence are sufficient to make us draw conclusions, they are seldom sufficient to make us revise them.”

想想这是多么容易做到。更好的判断并不一定需要数百次甚至数十次的更新。只需再多做几次反思，就能带来改变。然而，值得注意的是，这种程度的反思是多么不寻常。我们当中有多少人还记得上一次承认错误并相应地修正观点是什么时候？正如记者凯瑟琳·舒尔茨所言：“虽然少量的证据足以让我们得出结论，但它们很少足以让我们修改它们。”

That’s where the best forecasters excelled: they were eager to think again. They saw their opinions more as hunches than as truths—as possibilities to entertain rather than facts to embrace. They questioned ideas before accepting them, and they were willing to keep questioning them even after accepting them. They were constantly seeking new information and better evidence—especially disconfirming evidence.

最优秀的预测者之所以出类拔萃，正是因为他们渴望重新思考。他们视自己的观点为直觉而非真理，与其说是真理，不如说是值得思考的可能性，而非值得接受的事实。他们在接受观点之前会质疑，即使接受了，也愿意继续质疑。他们不断寻求新的信息和更可靠的证据——尤其是那些令人反感的证据。

On Seinfeld , George Costanza famously said, “ It’s not a lie if you believe it.” I might add that it doesn’t become the truth just because you believe it. It’s a sign of wisdom to avoid believing every thought that enters your mind. It’s a mark of emotional intelligence to avoid internalizing every feeling that enters your heart.

在《宋飞传》中，乔治·康斯坦扎有句名言：“如果你相信它，它就不是谎言。” 我还要补充一点，它不会因为你相信就变成真理。避免相信你脑海里的每一个想法是智慧的标志。避免内化你内心的每一种感受是情商的标志。

Ellis Rosen/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

埃利斯·罗森/纽约客收藏/卡通银行

Another of the world’s top forecasters is Kjirste Morrell. She’s obviously bright—she has a doctorate from MIT in mechanical engineering—but her academic and professional experience wasn’t exactly relevant to predicting world events. Her background was in human hip joint mechanics, designing better shoes, and building robotic wheelchairs. When I asked Kjirste what made her so good at forecasting, she replied, “There’s no benefit to me for being wrong for longer. It’s much better if I change my beliefs sooner, and it’s a good feeling to have that sense of a discovery, that surprise—I would think people would enjoy that.”

另一位世界顶级预测家是基尔斯特·莫雷尔。她显然很聪明——她拥有麻省理工学院机械工程博士学位——但她的学术和职业经历与预测世界事件并不完全相关。她的背景是人体髋关节力学、设计更佳的鞋子以及制造机器人轮椅。当我问基尔斯特是什么让她如此擅长预测时，她回答说：“长期犯错对我来说没有任何好处。如果我能尽早改变我的信念，那就更好了，而且拥有那种发现的感觉，那种惊喜的感觉，感觉很好——我想人们会喜欢这种感觉。”

Kjirste hasn’t just figured out how to erase the pain of being wrong. She’s transformed it into a source of pleasure. She landed there through a form of classical conditioning, like when Pavlov’s dog learned to salivate at the sound of a bell. If being wrong repeatedly leads us to the right answer, the experience of being wrong itself can become joyful.

基尔斯特不仅找到了消除犯错痛苦的方法，还将其转化为快乐的源泉。她通过一种经典条件反射的方式实现了这一点，就像巴甫洛夫的狗听到铃声就会流口水一样。如果不断犯错最终能引导我们找到正确答案，那么犯错本身就能带来快乐。

That doesn’t mean we’ll enjoy it every step of the way. One of Kjirste’s biggest misses was her forecast for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where she bet on Hillary Clinton to beat Donald Trump. Since she wasn’t a Trump supporter, the prospect of being wrong was painful—it was too central to her identity. She knew a Trump presidency was possible, but she didn’t want to think it was probable, so she couldn’t bring herself to forecast it.

这并不意味着我们会一路享受。基尔斯特最大的失误之一是她对2016年美国总统大选的预测，当时她押注希拉里·克林顿会击败唐纳德·特朗普。由于她不是特朗普的支持者，预测错误的可能性让她感到痛苦——这对她的身份认同来说太重要了。她知道特朗普当选总统是可能的，但她不愿相信这是可能的，所以她不敢预测。

That was a common mistake in 2016. Countless experts, pollsters, and pundits underestimated Trump—and Brexit—because they were too emotionally invested in their past predictions and identities. If you want to be a better forecaster today, it helps to let go of your commitment to the opinions you held yesterday. Just wake up in the morning, snap your fingers, and decide you don’t care. It doesn’t matter who’s president or what happens to your country. The world is unjust and the expertise you spent decades developing is obsolete! It’s a piece of cake, right? About as easy as willing yourself to fall out of love. Somehow, Jean-Pierre Beugoms managed to pull it off.

这是2016年常见的错误。无数专家、民意调查员和评论家低估了特朗普和英国脱欧，因为他们过于情绪化地沉迷于过去的预测和身份认同。如果你想今天成为一个更优秀的预测者，放下你昨天持有的观点会有所帮助。早上醒来，打个响指，决定你不在乎。谁当总统，你的国家发生什么，都无关紧要。这个世界不公平，你几十年来积累的专业知识已经过时了！这很容易，对吧？就像让自己不再爱一样容易。不知何故，让-皮埃尔·博贡做到了。

When Donald Trump first declared his candidacy in the spring of 2015, Jean-Pierre gave him only a 2 percent chance of becoming the nominee. As Trump began rising in the August polls, Jean-Pierre was motivated to question himself. He detached his present from his past, acknowledging that his original prediction was understandable, given the information he had at the time.

2015年春，唐纳德·特朗普首次宣布参选时，让-皮埃尔认为他只有2%的概率获得提名。随着特朗普在8月份的民调中支持率开始上升，让-皮埃尔开始反思自己。他把现在和过去分开，承认考虑到当时掌握的信息，他最初的预测是可以理解的。

Detaching his opinions from his identity was harder. Jean-Pierre didn’t want Trump to win, so it would’ve been easy to fall into the trap of desirability bias. He overcame it by focusing on a different goal. “I wasn’t so attached to my original forecast,” he explained, because of “the desire to win, the desire to be the best forecaster.” He still had a stake in the outcome he actually preferred, but he had an even bigger stake in not making a mistake. His values put truth above tribe: “If the evidence strongly suggests that my tribe is wrong on a particular issue, then so be it. I consider all of my opinions tentative. When the facts change, I change my opinions.”

将自己的观点与身份认同区分开来更加困难。让-皮埃尔不希望特朗普获胜，所以很容易陷入“期望偏差”的陷阱。他通过专注于不同的目标克服了它。“我并没有那么执着于我最初的预测，”他解释道，因为“我渴望获胜，渴望成为最优秀的预测者。”他仍然希望自己真正想要的结果能够带来好运，但更重要的是，他希望自己不犯错。他的价值观将真理置于群体之上：“如果证据强烈表明我的群体在某个问题上是错误的，那就这样吧。我认为我所有的观点都是暂时的。当事实发生变化时，我会改变我的观点。”

Research suggests that identifying even a single reason why we might be wrong can be enough to curb overconfidence. Jean-Pierre went further; he made a list of all the arguments that pundits were making about why Trump couldn’t win and went looking for evidence that they (and he) were wrong. He found that evidence within the polls: in contrast with widespread claims that Trump was a factional candidate with narrow appeal, Jean-Pierre saw that Trump was popular across key Republican demographic groups. By mid-September, Jean-Pierre was an outlier, putting Trump’s odds of becoming the nominee over 50 percent. “Accept the fact that you’re going to be wrong,” Jean-Pierre advises. “Try to disprove yourself. When you’re wrong, it’s not something to be depressed about. Say, ‘Hey, I discovered something!’”

研究表明，即使只找出一个我们可能犯错的原因，也足以抑制过度自信。让-皮埃尔更进一步；他列出了专家们关于特朗普无法获胜的所有论据，并寻找他们（以及他自己）错误的证据。他在民调中找到了证据：与普遍认为特朗普是一位吸引力狭隘的派系候选人的说法相反，让-皮埃尔发现，特朗普在共和党主要人口群体中很受欢迎。到9月中旬，让-皮埃尔的预测出现了异常，他认为特朗普获得提名的几率超过50%。“接受你会犯错的事实，”让-皮埃尔建议道。“试着反驳自己。当你犯错时，不必沮丧。说，‘嘿，我发现了一些东西！’”

MISTAKES WERE MADE . . . MOST LIKELY BY ME

错误是犯的……很可能是我

As prescient as Jean-Pierre’s bet on Trump was, he still had trouble sticking to it in the face of his feelings. In the spring of 2016, he identified the media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a red flag, and kept predicting a Trump victory for two months more. By the summer, though, as he contemplated the impending possibility of a Trump presidency, he found himself struggling to sleep at night. He changed his forecast to Clinton.

尽管让-皮埃尔押注特朗普颇有先见之明，但在面对自己的情绪时，他仍然难以坚持下去。2016年春，他将媒体对希拉里·克林顿邮件的报道视为危险信号，并在接下来的两个月里一直预测特朗普会胜选。然而到了夏天，当他想到特朗普即将当选总统的可能性时，他发现自己夜不能寐。于是他改变了对希拉里胜选的预测。

Looking back, Jean-Pierre isn’t defensive about his decision. He freely admits that despite being an experienced forecaster, he made the rookie mistake of falling victim to desirability bias, allowing his preference to cloud his judgment. He focused on the forces that would enable him to predict a Clinton win because he desperately wanted a Trump loss. “That was just a way of me trying to deal with this unpleasant forecast I had issued,” he says. Then he does something unexpected: he laughs at himself.

回首往事，让-皮埃尔并没有为自己的决定辩解。他坦言，尽管自己是一位经验丰富的预测者，却犯了新手常犯的错误——受制于期望偏差，任由自己的偏好左右判断。他之所以关注那些能够让他预测克林顿胜选的因素，是因为他迫切希望特朗普败选。“那只是我试图应对自己之前做出的那个不愉快的预测的一种方式，”他说。然后，他做了一件出人意料的事情：自嘲。

If we’re insecure, we make fun of others. If we’re comfortable being wrong, we’re not afraid to poke fun at ourselves. Laughing at ourselves reminds us that although we might take our decisions seriously, we don’t have to take ourselves too seriously. Research suggests that the more frequently we make fun of ourselves, the happier we tend to be. * Instead of beating ourselves up about our mistakes, we can turn some of our past misconceptions into sources of present amusement.

如果我们缺乏安全感，就会取笑别人。如果我们乐于犯错，就不会害怕自嘲。自嘲会提醒我们，虽然我们可能会认真对待自己的决定，但不必太认真对待自己。研究表明，我们越经常自嘲，就越容易感到快乐。*与其因为错误而自责，不如把过去的一些错误观念转化为当下的乐趣。

Being wrong won’t always be joyful. The path to embracing mistakes is full of painful moments, and we handle those moments better when we remember they’re essential for progress. But if we can’t learn to find occasional glee in discovering we were wrong, it will be awfully hard to get anything right.

犯错并不总是令人愉悦的。拥抱错误的道路上充满了痛苦的时刻，当我们记住这些时刻对于进步至关重要时，我们就能更好地应对这些时刻。但如果我们不能学会偶尔从发现自己犯错中找到快乐，那么任何事情都很难做好。

I’ve noticed a paradox in great scientists and superforecasters: the reason they’re so comfortable being wrong is that they’re terrified of being wrong. What sets them apart is the time horizon. They’re determined to reach the correct answer in the long run, and they know that means they have to be open to stumbling, backtracking, and rerouting in the short run. They shun rose-colored glasses in favor of a sturdy mirror. The fear of missing the mark next year is a powerful motivator to get a crystal-clear view of last year’s mistakes. “ People who are right a lot listen a lot, and they change their mind a lot,” Jeff Bezos says. “If you don’t change your mind frequently, you’re going to be wrong a lot.”

我注意到伟大的科学家和超级预测者身上有一个悖论：他们之所以如此坦然面对错误，是因为他们害怕犯错。他们之所以与众不同，是因为他们有远见卓识。他们决心在长期内找到正确答案，也知道这意味着他们必须对短期内的跌倒、回溯和重新规划持开放态度。他们不戴玫瑰色的眼镜，而是选择一面坚固的镜子。对明年错失目标的恐惧，是促使他们清晰地审视去年错误的强大动力。杰夫·贝佐斯说：“经常正确的人会经常倾听，并且经常改变主意。如果你不经常改变主意，你就会经常犯错。”

Jean-Pierre Beugoms has a favorite trick for catching himself when he’s wrong. When he makes a forecast, he also makes a list of the conditions in which it should hold true—as well as the conditions under which he would change his mind. He explains that this keeps him honest, preventing him from getting attached to a bad prediction.

让-皮埃尔·博贡（Jean-Pierre Beugoms）有个常用的技巧来避免自己犯错。他做预测时，会列出预测应该成立的条件，以及他会改变主意的条件。他解释说，这能让他保持诚实，避免被错误的预测所困扰。

What forecasters do in tournaments is good practice in life. When you form an opinion, ask yourself what would have to happen to prove it false. Then keep track of your views so you can see when you were right, when you were wrong, and how your thinking has evolved. “I started out just wanting to prove myself,” Jean-Pierre says. “Now I want to improve myself—to see how good I can get.”

预测者在锦标赛中所做的，在生活中也是一种很好的实践。当你形成一个观点时，问问自己，需要发生什么才能证明它是错误的。然后记录你的观点，这样你就能知道什么时候是对的，什么时候是错的，以及你的思维是如何演变的。“一开始我只是想证明自己，”让-皮埃尔说。“现在我想提升自己——看看我能变得有多好。”

It’s one thing to admit to ourselves that we’ve been wrong. It’s another thing to confess that to other people. Even if we manage to overthrow our inner dictator, we run the risk of facing outer ridicule. In some cases we fear that if others find out we were wrong, it could destroy our reputations. How do people who accept being wrong cope with that?

承认自己错了是一回事，向别人坦白又是另一回事。即使我们设法推翻内心的独裁者，也面临着外界嘲笑的风险。有时，我们担心如果别人发现我们错了，我们的名誉可能会受损。那些坦然接受错误的人是如何应对这种情况的呢？

In the early 1990s, the British physicist Andrew Lyne published a major discovery in the world’s most prestigious science journal. He presented the first evidence that a planet could orbit a neutron star—a star that had exploded into a supernova. Several months later, while preparing to give a presentation at an astronomy conference, he noticed that he hadn’t adjusted for the fact that the Earth moves in an elliptical orbit, not a circular one. He was embarrassingly, horribly wrong. The planet he had discovered didn’t exist.

20世纪90年代初，英国物理学家安德鲁·莱恩在世界最负盛名的科学期刊上发表了一项重大发现。他首次提出了行星可以绕中子星（一颗爆炸成超新星的恒星）运行的证据。几个月后，在准备在一次天文学会议上发表演讲时，他发现自己没有考虑到地球的轨道是椭圆形而非圆形的事实。他错得令人尴尬，错得可怕。他发现的那颗行星根本不存在。

In front of hundreds of colleagues, Andrew walked onto the ballroom stage and admitted his mistake. When he finished his confession, the room exploded in a standing ovation. One astrophysicist called it “ the most honorable thing I’ve ever seen.”

在数百名同事面前，安德鲁走上舞台，承认了自己的错误。当他坦白完毕时，全场爆发出热烈的起立鼓掌。一位天体物理学家称之为“我见过的最光荣的事”。

Andrew Lyne is not alone. Psychologists find that admitting we were wrong doesn’t make us look less competent. It’s a display of honesty and a willingness to learn. Although scientists believe it will damage their reputation to admit that their studies failed to replicate, the reverse is true: they’re judged more favorably if they acknowledge the new data rather than deny them. After all, it doesn’t matter “ whose fault it is that something is broken if it’s your responsibility to fix it,” actor Will Smith has said. “Taking responsibility is taking your power back.”

安德鲁·莱恩并非个例。心理学家发现，承认错误并不会让我们显得能力不足。这体现了诚实和学习的意愿。尽管科学家们认为承认研究无法重复会损害他们的声誉，但事实恰恰相反：如果他们承认新数据而不是否认它们，他们会得到更有利的评价。毕竟，演员威尔·史密斯曾说过，“如果修复问题是你的责任，那么是谁的错就无关紧要了。承担责任就是夺回你的权力。”

When we find out we might be wrong, a standard defense is “I’m entitled to my opinion.” I’d like to modify that: yes, we’re entitled to hold opinions inside our own heads. If we choose to express them out loud, though, I think it’s our responsibility to ground them in logic and facts, share our reasoning with others, and change our minds when better evidence emerges.

当我们发现自己可能犯错时，标准的辩护词是“我有权保留我的观点”。我想修改一下：是的，我们有权在自己的脑海里保留观点。但如果我们选择大声表达出来，我认为我们有责任用逻辑和事实来支撑它们，与他人分享我们的论证，并在出现更好的证据时改变我们的想法。

This philosophy takes us back to the Harvard students who had their worldviews attacked in that unethical study by Henry Murray. If I had to guess, I’d say the students who enjoyed the experience had a mindset similar to that of great scientists and superforecasters. They saw challenges to their opinions as an exciting opportunity to develop and evolve their thinking. The students who found it stressful didn’t know how to detach. Their opinions were their identities. An assault on their worldviews was a threat to their very sense of self. Their inner dictator rushed in to protect them.

这种哲学让我们回想起在亨利·默里那项不道德的研究中，世界观遭到攻击的哈佛学生。如果非要我猜的话，我会说那些享受这种经历的学生，其心态与伟大的科学家和超级预测家相似。他们将自身观点受到挑战视为发展和演变思维的激动人心的机会。而那些感到压力重重的学生，则不知如何抽离。他们的观点就是他们的身份。对他们世界观的攻击，对他们的自我意识本身就是一种威胁。他们内心的独裁者会冲进来保护他们。

Take it from the student with the code name Lawful. He felt he had been damaged emotionally by the study. “Our adversary in the debate subjected us to various insults,” Lawful reflected four decades later. “ It was a highly unpleasant experience.”

就拿代号为“合法”的学生来说吧。他觉得自己在学习中受到了情感上的伤害。“辩论时，我们的对手对我们进行了各种侮辱，”合法四十年后回忆道。“那是一段非常不愉快的经历。”

Today, Lawful has a different code name, one that’s familiar to most Americans. He’s known as the Unabomber.

如今，劳弗尔有了新的代号，一个大多数美国人都熟悉的名字——“大学炸弹客”。

Ted Kaczynski became a math professor turned anarchist and domestic terrorist. He mailed bombs that killed three people and injured twenty-three more. An eighteen-year-long FBI investigation culminated in his arrest after The New York Times and The Washington Post published his manifesto and his brother recognized his writing. He is now serving life in prison without parole.

泰德·卡辛斯基从一名数学教授沦为无政府主义者和国内恐怖分子。他邮寄炸弹，造成三人死亡，二十三人受伤。在《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》刊登了他的宣言，并被他的兄弟认出后，联邦调查局长达十八年的调查最终将他逮捕。他目前正在服终身监禁，不得假释。

The excerpt I quoted earlier was from Kaczynski’s manifesto. If you read the entire document, you’re unlikely to be unsettled by the content or the structure. What’s disturbing is the level of conviction. Kaczynski displays little consideration of alternative views, barely a hint that he might be wrong. Consider just the opening:

我之前引用的摘录来自卡钦斯基的宣言。如果你读完整个文件，你不太可能对其内容或结构感到不安。令人不安的是其坚定的信念。卡钦斯基几乎没有考虑其他观点，几乎没有暗示他可能错了。不妨看看开头：

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. . . . They have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling. . . . The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world. . . . If the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system. . . .

工业革命及其后果对人类来说是一场灾难……它们破坏了社会稳定，使生活变得毫无意义……技术的不断发展将使情况进一步恶化。它必将使人类遭受更大的屈辱，对自然界造成更大的破坏……如果这个体系继续存在，其后果将是不可避免的：没有办法改革或修改这个体系……

Kaczynski’s case leaves many questions about his mental health unanswered. Still, I can’t help but wonder: If he had learned to question his opinions, would he still have been able to justify resorting to violence? If he had developed the capacity to discover that he was wrong, would he still have ended up doing something so wrong?

卡钦斯基的案件留下了许多关于他精神健康状况的疑问。然而，我不禁想问：如果他学会了质疑自己的观点，他还能为诉诸暴力辩护吗？如果他学会了发现自己的错误，他最终还会做出如此错事吗？

Every time we encounter new information, we have a choice. We can attach our opinions to our identities and stand our ground in the stubbornness of preaching and prosecuting. Or we can operate more like scientists, defining ourselves as people committed to the pursuit of truth—even if it means proving our own views wrong.

每当我们接触新的信息时，我们都有选择。我们可以将自己的观点与身份认同联系起来，在固执的说教和批判中坚守自己的立场。或者，我们可以更像科学家，将自己定义为致力于追求真理的人——即使这意味着要证明自己的观点是错误的。

CHAPTER 4 第四章

The Good Fight Club

《傲骨之战》

The Psychology of Constructive Conflict

建设性冲突心理学

Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everybody in good society holds exactly the same opinions.

—Oscar Wilde

争论极其粗俗，因为在良好的社会中，每个人都持有完全相同的观点。——奥斯卡·王尔德

As the two youngest boys in a big family, the bishop’s sons did everything together. They launched a newspaper and built their own printing press together. They opened a bicycle shop and then started manufacturing their own bikes together. And after years of toiling away at a seemingly impossible problem, they invented the first successful airplane together.

作为大家庭中最小的两个儿子，主教的儿子们事事都在一起。他们一起创办了一家报纸，一起建造了自己的印刷机。他们开了一家自行车店，然后开始一起生产自己的自行车。经过多年潜心钻研，攻克了一个看似不可能的难题，他们最终共同发明了第一架成功的飞机。

Wilbur and Orville Wright first caught the flying bug when their father brought home a toy helicopter. After it broke, they built one of their own. As they advanced from playing together to working together to rethinking human flight together, there was no trace of sibling rivalry between them. Wilbur even said they “thought together.” Even though it was Wilbur who launched the project, the brothers shared equal credit for their achievement. When it came time to decide who would pilot their historic flight at Kitty Hawk, they just flipped a coin.

威尔伯和奥维尔·莱特兄弟最初迷上飞行，是因为他们的父亲带回家一架玩具直升机。直升机坏了之后，他们就自己动手造了一架。从一起玩耍到一起合作，再到一起重新思考人类飞行，他们之间丝毫没有竞争的痕迹。威尔伯甚至说他们“一起思考”。尽管是威尔伯发起了这个项目，但兄弟俩的成就功不可没。当决定谁将在基蒂霍克驾驶这架历史性飞行时，他们只是抛硬币决定。

New ways of thinking often spring from old bonds. The comedic chemistry of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler can be traced back to their early twenties, when they immediately hit it off in an improv class. The musical harmony of the Beatles started even earlier, when they were in high school. Just minutes after a mutual friend introduced them, Paul McCartney was teaching John Lennon how to tune a guitar. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream grew out of a friendship between the two founders that began in seventh-grade gym class. It seems that to make progress together, we need to be in sync. But the truth, like all truths, is more complicated.

新的思维方式往往源于旧有的联系。蒂娜·菲和艾米·波勒之间的喜剧化学反应可以追溯到她们二十出头的时候，当时她们在一堂即兴表演课上一拍即合。披头士乐队的音乐默契甚至更早，早在她们高中时期就开始了。在一位共同的朋友介绍他们认识几分钟后，保罗·麦卡特尼就教约翰·列侬如何调吉他。Ben & Jerry’s 冰淇淋的诞生源于两位创始人七年级体育课上的友谊。看来，要想共同进步，我们需要步调一致。但事实，就像所有事实一样，要复杂得多。

One of the world’s leading experts on conflict is an organizational psychologist in Australia named Karen “Etty” Jehn. When you think about conflict, you’re probably picturing what Etty calls relationship conflict—personal, emotional clashes that are filled not just with friction but also with animosity. I hate your stinking guts. I’ll use small words so that you’ll be sure to understand, you warthog-faced buffoon. You bob for apples in the toilet . . . and you like it.

世界上研究冲突的顶尖专家之一，是澳大利亚的组织心理学家凯伦·“埃蒂”·詹。说到冲突，你脑海中浮现的可能是埃蒂所说的关系冲突——个人情感上的冲突，不仅充满摩擦，还充满敌意。我讨厌你那臭烘烘的胆量。我尽量用些简单的词，这样你就能理解了，你这个疣猪脸的笨蛋。你在马桶里咬苹果……而且你还乐在其中。

But Etty has identified another flavor called task conflict—clashes about ideas and opinions. We have task conflict when we’re debating whom to hire, which restaurant to pick for dinner, or whether to name our child Gertrude or Quasar. The question is whether the two types of conflict have different consequences.

但埃蒂发现了另一种冲突，叫做任务冲突——关于想法和意见的冲突。当我们讨论该雇佣谁、该选择哪家餐厅吃饭，或者给孩子取名为“Gertrude”还是“Quasar”时，我们就会遇到任务冲突。问题在于，这两种冲突是否会带来不同的后果。

A few years ago I surveyed hundreds of new teams in Silicon Valley on conflict several times during their first six months working together. Even if they argued constantly and agreed on nothing else, they agreed on what kind of conflict they were having. When their projects were finished, I asked their managers to evaluate each team’s effectiveness.

几年前，我曾对硅谷数百个新团队在合作的前六个月里进行过多次冲突调查。即使他们不断争吵，在其他方面也毫无共识，但他们对冲突的类型却达成了共识。项目完成后，我请他们的经理评估每个团队的效率。

The teams that performed poorly started with more relationship conflict than task conflict. They entered into personal feuds early on and were so busy disliking one another that they didn’t feel comfortable challenging one another. It took months for many of the teams to make real headway on their relationship issues, and by the time they did manage to debate key decisions, it was often too late to rethink their directions.

表现不佳的团队一开始的关系冲突比任务冲突更多。他们一开始就陷入了个人恩怨，彼此厌恶，以至于不敢互相挑战。许多团队花了几个月的时间才在关系问题上取得真正的进展，而等到他们终于能够讨论关键决策时，往往已经来不及重新思考方向了。

What happened in the high-performing groups? As you might expect, they started with low relationship conflict and kept it low throughout their work together. That didn’t stop them from having task conflict at the outset: they didn’t hesitate to surface competing perspectives. As they resolved some of their differences of opinion, they were able to align on a direction and carry out their work until they ran into new issues to debate.

高绩效团队发生了什么？不出所料，他们一开始的关系冲突就很低，并且在整个合作过程中也一直保持低冲突。但这并没有阻止他们从一开始就产生任务冲突：他们毫不犹豫地提出相互竞争的观点。随着一些意见分歧得到解决，他们能够朝着一致的方向开展工作，直到遇到新的问题需要讨论。

All in all, more than a hundred studies have examined conflict types in over eight thousand teams. A meta-analysis of those studies showed that relationship conflict is generally bad for performance, but some task conflict can be beneficial: it’s been linked to higher creativity and smarter choices. For example, there’s evidence that when teams experience moderate task conflict early on, they generate more original ideas in Chinese technology companies, innovate more in Dutch delivery services, and make better decisions in American hospitals. As one research team concluded, “ The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.”

总而言之，已有一百多项研究调查了八千多个团队的冲突类型。这些研究的荟萃分析表明，关系冲突通常不利于绩效，但某些任务冲突却可能有益：它与更高的创造力和更明智的选择相关。例如，有证据表明，当团队在早期经历适度的任务冲突时，中国科技公司会产生更多原创想法，荷兰快递服务公司会更具创新性，美国医院也会做出更明智的决策。正如一个研究团队得出的结论：“没有冲突并非和谐，而是冷漠。”

Relationship conflict is destructive in part because it stands in the way of rethinking. When a clash gets personal and emotional, we become self-righteous preachers of our own views, spiteful prosecutors of the other side, or single-minded politicians who dismiss opinions that don’t come from our side. Task conflict can be constructive when it brings diversity of thought, preventing us from getting trapped in overconfidence cycles. It can help us stay humble, surface doubts, and make us curious about what we might be missing. That can lead us to think again, moving us closer to the truth without damaging our relationships.

人际关系冲突之所以具有破坏性，部分原因在于它阻碍了反思。当冲突变得个人化和情绪化时，我们会变成自以为是地宣扬自身观点的布道者，或是恶意指责对方，或是一意孤行地成为政客，对非本方观点不屑一顾。任务冲突可以带来建设性的影响，因为它能带来思想的多样性，防止我们陷入过度自信的怪圈。它可以帮助我们保持谦逊，坦诚地面对疑虑，并激发我们对自身可能缺失的东西的好奇心。这可以引导我们重新思考，在不损害人际关系的情况下更接近真相。

Although productive disagreement is a critical life skill, it’s one that many of us never fully develop. The problem starts early: parents disagree behind closed doors, fearing that conflict will make children anxious or somehow damage their character. Yet research shows that how often parents argue has no bearing on their children’s academic, social, or emotional development. What matters is how respectfully parents argue, not how frequently. Kids whose parents clash constructively feel more emotionally safe in elementary school, and over the next few years they actually demonstrate more helpfulness and compassion toward their classmates.

虽然富有成效的分歧是一项至关重要的生活技能，但我们很多人从未完全掌握。问题始于童年：父母私下里争吵，担心冲突会让孩子焦虑，或在某种程度上损害他们的性格。然而，研究表明，父母争吵的频率与孩子的学业、社交或情感发展无关。重要的是父母争吵时如何尊重彼此，而不是争吵的频率。父母积极沟通的孩子在小学阶段会更有安全感，在接下来的几年里，他们实际上会对同学表现出更多的帮助和同情。

Being able to have a good fight doesn’t just make us more civil; it also develops our creative muscles. In a classic study, highly creative architects were more likely than their technically competent but less original peers to come from homes with plenty of friction. They often grew up in households that were “ tense but secure,” as psychologist Robert Albert notes: “ The creative person-to-be comes from a family that is anything but harmonious, one with a ‘wobble.’” The parents weren’t physically or verbally abusive, but they didn’t shy away from conflict, either. Instead of telling their children to be seen but not heard, they encouraged them to stand up for themselves. The kids learned to dish it out—and take it. That’s exactly what happened to Wilbur and Orville Wright.

能够好好吵架不仅能让我们更加文明，还能培养我们的创造力。一项经典研究表明，相比技术精湛但缺乏创意的同龄人，极具创造力的建筑师更有可能来自充满摩擦的家庭。他们通常成长于“紧张但安全”的家庭，正如心理学家罗伯特·艾伯特所指出的那样：“未来富有创造力的人来自一个极不和谐、充满‘摇摆’的家庭。” 父母不会在身体或言语上虐待孩子，但他们也不会回避冲突。他们没有告诉孩子要被看到而不是被听到，而是鼓励他们为自己挺身而出。孩子们学会了发泄，并承受。这正是威尔伯和奥维尔·莱特兄弟的遭遇。

When the Wright brothers said they thought together, what they really meant is that they fought together. Arguing was the family business. Although their father was a bishop in the local church, he included books by atheists in his library—and encouraged the children to read and debate them. They developed the courage to fight for their ideas and the resilience to lose a disagreement without losing their resolve. When they were solving problems, they had arguments that lasted not just for hours but for weeks and months at a time. They didn’t have such incessant spats because they were angry. They kept quarreling because they enjoyed it and learned from the experience. “I like scrapping with Orv,” Wilbur reflected. As you’ll see, it was one of their most passionate and prolonged arguments that led them to rethink a critical assumption that had prevented humans from soaring through the skies.

莱特兄弟说他们一起思考，其实是一起奋斗。争论是家常便饭。虽然他们的父亲是当地教会的主教，但他在藏书中收藏了无神论者的书籍，并鼓励孩子们阅读和辩论。他们培养了为自己的想法奋斗的勇气，以及即使意见相左也不会动摇决心的韧性。解决问题时，他们的争论不仅持续几个小时，甚至会持续数周甚至数月。他们并非因为愤怒而无休止地争吵。他们不断争吵，是因为他们乐在其中，并从中汲取经验教训。“我喜欢和奥夫斗嘴，”威尔伯回忆道。正如你所见，正是他们最激烈、最持久的争论之一，促使他们重新思考一个阻碍人类翱翔天空的关键假设。

THE PLIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PLEASER

取悦大众的困境

As long as I can remember, I’ve been determined to keep the peace. Maybe it’s because my group of friends dropped me in middle school. Maybe it’s genetic. Maybe it’s because my parents got divorced. Whatever the cause, in psychology there’s a name for my affliction. It’s called agreeableness, and it’s one of the major personality traits around the world. Agreeable people tend to be nice. Friendly. Polite. Canadian. *

从我记事起，我就决心要保持这份平静。也许是因为我的朋友们在中学时就把我抛弃了。也许是基因决定的。也许是因为我的父母离婚了。不管原因是什么，心理学上有个词来形容我的这种病。它叫做“亲和性”，它是全世界最主要的性格特征之一。亲和性的人往往很友善。友好。有礼貌。加拿大人。*

My first impulse is to avoid even the most trivial of conflicts. When I’m riding in an Uber and the air-conditioning is blasting, I struggle to bring myself to ask the driver to turn it down—I just sit there shivering in silence until my teeth start to chatter. When someone steps on my shoe, I’ve actually apologized for inconveniently leaving my foot in his path. When students fill out course evaluations, one of their most common complaints is that I’m “too supportive of stupid comments.”

我的第一反应是避免哪怕是最微不足道的冲突。当我乘坐优步时，空调开得非常大，我很难让自己要求司机把风调低——我只是默默地坐在那里瑟瑟发抖，直到牙齿开始打颤。如果有人踩到我的鞋子，我实际上已经为不方便地挡住他的路而道歉了。学生们填写课程评估时，他们最常见的抱怨之一就是我“太支持那些愚蠢的评论了”。

Disagreeable people tend to be more critical, skeptical, and challenging—and they’re more likely than their peers to become engineers and lawyers. They’re not just comfortable with conflict; it energizes them. If you’re highly disagreeable, you might be happier in an argument than in a friendly conversation. That quality often comes with a bad rap: disagreeable people get stereotyped as curmudgeons who complain about every idea, or Dementors who suck the joy out of every meeting. When I studied Pixar, though, I came away with a dramatically different view.

性格不合的人往往更爱批评、更爱怀疑、更爱挑战——而且他们比同龄人更有可能成为工程师或律师。他们不仅乐于接受冲突，还能从中汲取能量。如果你性格非常不合群，你可能在争论中比在友好交谈中更快乐。这种特质往往伴随着负面评价：性格不合的人会被刻板地贴上“脾气暴躁、对每个想法都抱怨”的标签，或者被贴上“摄魂怪”的标签，吸干每次会议的乐趣。然而，当我研究皮克斯时，我却有了截然不同的看法。

In 2000, Pixar was on fire. Their teams had used computers to rethink animation in their first blockbuster, Toy Story , and they were fresh off two more smash hits. Yet the company’s founders weren’t content to rest on their laurels. They recruited an outside director named Brad Bird to shake things up. Brad had just released his debut film, which was well reviewed but flopped at the box office, so he was itching to do something big and bold. When he pitched his vision, the technical leadership at Pixar said it was impossible: they would need a decade and $500 million to make it.

2000年，皮克斯正处于鼎盛时期。他们的团队利用计算机重新构思了首部卖座大片《玩具总动员》的动画制作，之后又推出了两部大热作品。然而，公司的创始人并不满足于现状。他们聘请了一位名叫布拉德·伯德的外部导演来打破常规。布拉德的处女作刚刚上映，虽然口碑不错，但票房惨败，因此他渴望尝试一些大胆的尝试。当他提出自己的愿景时，皮克斯的技术领导层表示这不可能：他们需要十年时间和五亿美元才能完成。

Brad wasn’t ready to give up. He sought out the biggest misfits at Pixar for his project—people who were disagreeable, disgruntled, and dissatisfied. Some called them black sheep. Others called them pirates. When Brad rounded them up, he warned them that no one believed they could pull off the project. Just four years later, his team didn’t only succeed in releasing Pixar’s most complex film ever; they actually managed to lower the cost of production per minute. The Incredibles went on to gross upwards of $631 million worldwide and won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature.

布拉德不甘心放弃。他把皮克斯最不合群的人都招揽进来，让他们参与到他的项目中来——那些不和睦、心怀不满、不满意的人。有人称他们为害群之马，也有人称他们为海盗。布拉德把他们召集起来后，警告他们，没人相信他们能完成这个项目。仅仅四年后，他的团队不仅成功发行了皮克斯史上最复杂的电影，还成功降低了每分钟的制作成本。《超人总动员》的全球票房收入超过6.31亿美元，并荣获奥斯卡最佳动画长片奖。

Notice what Brad didn’t do. He didn’t stock his team with agreeable people. Agreeable people make for a great support network: they’re excited to encourage us and cheerlead for us. Rethinking depends on a different kind of network: a challenge network, a group of people we trust to point out our blind spots and help us overcome our weaknesses. Their role is to activate rethinking cycles by pushing us to be humble about our expertise, doubt our knowledge, and be curious about new perspectives.

注意布拉德没有做什么。他没有在团队里塞满随和的人。随和的人会形成强大的支持网络：他们乐于鼓励我们，为我们加油鼓劲。反思依赖于另一种网络：挑战网络，一群我们信任的人，他们会指出我们的盲点，帮助我们克服弱点。他们的作用是通过促使我们谦虚地对待自己的专业知识，质疑自己的知识，并对新观点保持好奇心，来激活反思周期。

The ideal members of a challenge network are disagreeable, because they’re fearless about questioning the way things have always been done and holding us accountable for thinking again. There’s evidence that disagreeable people speak up more frequently— especially when leaders aren’t receptive—and foster more task conflict. They’re like the doctor in the show House or the boss in the film The Devil Wears Prada . They give the critical feedback we might not want to hear, but need to hear.

挑战网络的理想成员是令人不快的，因为他们勇于质疑一贯的做事方式，并要求我们重新思考。有证据表明，令人不快的人会更频繁地表达意见——尤其是在领导者不予理会的情况下——从而引发更多的任务冲突。他们就像电视剧《豪斯医生》里的医生，或者电影《穿普拉达的女王》里的老板。他们会给出我们可能不想听却又需要听的批评性反馈。

Harnessing disagreeable people isn’t always easy. It helps if certain conditions are in place. Studies in oil drilling and tech companies suggest that dissatisfaction promotes creativity only when people feel committed and supported—and that cultural misfits are most likely to add value when they have strong bonds with their colleagues. *

驾驭不讨喜的人并非易事。但某些条件具备时，就会有所帮助。针对石油钻探和科技公司的研究表明，只有当人们感受到承诺和支持时，不满情绪才能促进创造力——而文化不适应者与同事建立牢固联系时，最有可能创造价值。*

Before Brad Bird arrived, Pixar already had a track record of encouraging talented people to push boundaries. But the studio’s previous films had starred toys, bugs, and monsters, which were relatively simple to animate. Since making a whole film with lifelike human superheroes was beyond the capabilities of computer animation at the time, the technical teams balked at Brad’s vision for The Incredibles . That’s when he created his challenge network. He enlisted his band of pirates to foster task conflict and rethink the process.

在布拉德·伯德加入皮克斯之前，皮克斯就一直鼓励人才突破界限。但工作室之前的电影大多以玩具、昆虫和怪兽为主角，这些元素的动画制作相对简单。由于当时电脑动画技术无法完成一部由栩栩如生的人类超级英雄组成的电影，技术团队对布拉德的《超人总动员》构想犹豫不决。于是，他创建了自己的挑战网络，招募了一群“海盗”来促进任务冲突，并重新思考整个制作流程。

Brad gathered the pirates in Pixar’s theater and told them that although a bunch of bean counters and corporate suits might not believe in them, he did. After rallying them he went out of his way to seek out their ideas. “I want people who are disgruntled because they have a better way of doing things and they are having trouble finding an avenue,” Brad told me. “Racing cars that are just spinning their wheels in a garage rather than racing. You open that garage door, and man, those people will take you somewhere.” The pirates rose to the occasion, finding economical alternatives to expensive techniques and easy workarounds for hard problems. When it came time to animate the superhero family, they didn’t toil over the intricate contours of interlocking muscles. Instead they figured out that sliding simple oval shapes against one another could become the building blocks of complex muscles.

布拉德把海盗们召集到皮克斯的剧院，告诉他们，虽然一群精打细算的会计师和公司高管可能不相信他们，但他相信。召集他们之后，他特意去征求他们的想法。“我想要的是那些心怀不满的人，因为他们有更好的做事方式，只是苦于找不到出路，”布拉德告诉我。“他们就像赛车一样，只是在车库里空转，而不是在比赛。你打开车库门，伙计，那些人会带你去某个地方。”海盗们挺身而出，找到了经济实惠的替代方案来取代昂贵的技术，并为难题找到了简单的解决方法。在为超级英雄家族制作动画时，他们没有费力地设计错综复杂的肌肉轮廓。相反，他们发现，简单的椭圆形相互滑动可以成为复杂肌肉的基石。

When I asked Brad how he recognized the value of pirates, he told me it was because he is one. Growing up, when he went to dinner at friends’ houses, he was taken aback by the polite questions their parents asked about their day at school. Bird family dinners were more like a food fight, where they all vented, debated, and spoke their minds. Brad found the exchanges contentious but fun, and he brought that mentality into his first dream job at Disney. From an early age, he had been mentored and trained by a group of old Disney masters to put quality first, and he was frustrated that their replacements—who now supervised the new generation at the studio—weren’t upholding the same standards. Within a few months of launching his animation career at Disney, Brad was criticizing senior leaders for taking on conventional projects and producing substandard work. They told him to be quiet and do his job. When he refused, they fired him.

当我问布拉德他是如何认识到海盗的价值时，他告诉我，因为他自己就是其中的一员。小时候，他去朋友家吃饭时，总是被父母礼貌地问起他们在学校的学习情况而感到吃惊。伯德一家的聚餐更像是一场食物大战，大家尽情吐槽、辩论，畅所欲言。布拉德觉得这种交流虽然充满争议，但充满乐趣，他把这种心态带到了他梦寐以求的第一份工作——迪士尼。从小，他就接受过迪士尼老一辈大师的指导和培训，要把质量放在第一位。而如今，这些大师的继任者——如今负责监督工作室的新一代——却没有秉持同样的标准，这让他感到沮丧。在迪士尼开启动画职业生涯的几个月后，布拉德就开始批评高层领导接手了那些循规蹈矩的项目，制作出的质量不达标的作品。他们让他保持安静，做好自己的工作。当他拒绝时，他们就解雇了他。

I’ve watched too many leaders shield themselves from task conflict. As they gain power, they tune out boat-rockers and listen to bootlickers. They become politicians, surrounding themselves with agreeable yes-men and becoming more susceptible to seduction by sycophants. Research reveals that when their firms perform poorly, CEOs who indulge flattery and conformity become overconfident. They stick to their existing strategic plans instead of changing course—which sets them on a collision course with failure.

我见过太多领导者为了避免任务冲突而保护自己。随着权力的扩大，他们开始对那些煽动者置之不理，转而听信那些谄媚者。他们变成了政客，身边都是唯唯诺诺的人，也更容易受到谄媚者的诱惑。研究表明，当公司业绩不佳时，那些沉溺于奉承和墨守成规的CEO会变得过度自信。他们会固守现有的战略计划，不愿改变方向——这最终将他们推向了失败的道路。

We learn more from people who challenge our thought process than those who affirm our conclusions. Strong leaders engage their critics and make themselves stronger. Weak leaders silence their critics and make themselves weaker. This reaction isn’t limited to people in power. Although we might be on board with the principle, in practice we often miss out on the value of a challenge network.

我们从那些挑战我们思维模式的人身上学到的东西，比那些肯定我们结论的人更多。强大的领导者会与批评者接触，从而使自己更加强大。而软弱的领导者则会压制批评者，从而使自己更加软弱。这种反应并非仅限于掌权者。尽管我们可能认同这一原则，但在实践中，我们常常会忽略挑战网络的价值。

In one experiment, when people were criticized rather than praised by a partner, they were over four times more likely to request a new partner. Across a range of workplaces, when employees received tough feedback from colleagues, their default response was to avoid those coworkers or drop them from their networks altogether—and their performance suffered over the following year.

在一项实验中，当人们受到伴侣的批评而不是表扬时，他们要求更换伴侣的可能性要高出四倍之多。在一系列工作场所中，当员工收到同事的严厉反馈时，他们的默认反应是避开这些同事，或者干脆把他们从人际网络中剔除——这会导致他们接下来一年的绩效下降。

Some organizations and occupations counter those tendencies by building challenge networks into their cultures. From time to time the Pentagon and the White House have used aptly named “ murder boards” to stir up task conflict, enlisting tough-minded committees to shoot down plans and candidates. At X, Google’s “moonshot factory,” there’s a rapid evaluation team that’s charged with rethinking proposals: members conduct independent assessments and only advance the ones that emerge as both audacious and achievable. In science, a challenge network is often a cornerstone of the peer-review process. We submit articles anonymously, and they’re reviewed blindly by independent experts. I’ll never forget the rejection letter I once received in which one of the reviewers encouraged me to go back and read the work of Adam Grant. Dude, I am Adam Grant.

一些组织和职业通过在文化中构建挑战网络来对抗这些倾向。五角大楼和白宫不时会使用名副其实的“谋杀委员会”来挑起任务冲突，招募一些意志坚定的委员会来否决计划和候选人。在谷歌的“登月工厂”X，有一个快速评估团队，负责重新思考提案：成员进行独立评估，只推进那些既大胆又可行的提案。在科学界，挑战网络通常是同行评审流程的基石。我们匿名提交文章，并由独立专家进行盲审。我永远不会忘记曾经收到的一封拒稿信，其中一位审稿人鼓励我回去读亚当·格兰特的作品。老兄，我就是亚当·格兰特。

When I write a book, I like to enlist my own challenge network. I recruit a group of my most thoughtful critics and ask them to tear each chapter apart. I’ve learned that it’s important to consider their values along with their personalities—I’m looking for disagreeable people who are givers, not takers. Disagreeable givers often make the best critics: their intent is to elevate the work, not feed their own egos. They don’t criticize because they’re insecure; they challenge because they care. They dish out tough love. *

我写书的时候，喜欢利用自己的挑战网络。我会招募一群最有思想的评论家，让他们逐章逐句地分析。我意识到，除了考虑他们的个性之外，还要考虑他们的价值观——我寻找的是那些不讨人喜欢、乐于付出而不是索取的人。不讨人喜欢的付出者往往是最好的评论家：他们的目的是提升作品的质量，而不是满足自己的虚荣心。他们批评并非因为缺乏安全感；他们质疑是因为他们关心。他们会给予严厉的爱。*

Ernest Hemingway once said, “ The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof sh*t detector.” My challenge network is my sh*t detector. I think of it as a good fight club. The first rule: avoiding an argument is bad manners. Silence disrespects the value of your views and our ability to have a civil disagreement.

欧内斯特·海明威曾经说过：“优秀作家最重要的天赋，就是一个与生俱来的、防震的垃圾探测器。” 我的挑战网络就是我的垃圾探测器。我把它看作一个很棒的搏击俱乐部。第一条规则：回避争论是不礼貌的。沉默是对观点价值的不尊重，也是对我们进行文明辩论能力的不尊重。

Brad Bird lives by that rule. He has legendary arguments with his long-standing producer, John Walker. When making The Incredibles , they fought about every character detail, right down to their hair—from how receding the hairline should be on the superhero dad to whether the teenage daughter’s hair should be long and flowing. At one point, Brad wanted the baby to morph into goo, taking on a jellylike shape, but John put his foot down. It would be too difficult to animate, and they were too far behind schedule. “I’m just trying to herd you toward the finish,” John said, laughing. “I’m just trying to get us across the line, man.” Pounding his fist, Brad shot back: “I’m trying to get us across the line in first place.”

布拉德·伯德（Brad Bird）就秉持着这条原则。他和长期合作的制片人约翰·沃克（John Walker）之间经常发生激烈的争吵。在拍摄《超人总动员》时，他们为角色的每一个细节争执不休，甚至连发型都争执不休——从超级英雄爸爸的发际线该后移到多远，到十几岁女儿的头发该不该留得长长飘逸，都成了他们的争论焦点。布拉德一度想让婴儿变成果冻状，但约翰坚持要这样做，因为这对动画制作来说太难了，而且他们的进度也远远落后于计划。“我只是想帮你赶上进度，”约翰笑着说，“我只是想让我们早点完成任务，伙计。”布拉德捶打着拳头反驳道：“我只是想让我们第一个完成任务。”

Eventually John talked Brad out of it, and the goo was gone. “I love working with John, because he’ll give me the bad news straight to my face,” Brad says. “It’s good that we disagree. It’s good that we fight it out. It makes the stuff stronger.”

最终，约翰说服了布拉德，一切尘埃落定。“我喜欢和约翰一起工作，因为他会当面告诉我坏消息，”布拉德说。“我们意见不合是好事。我们能互相争论也是好事。这能让事情变得更有力量。”

Those fights have helped Brad win two Oscars—and made him a better learner and a better leader. For John’s part, he didn’t flat-out refuse to animate a gooey baby. He just told Brad he would have to wait a little bit. Sure enough, when they got around to releasing a sequel to The Incredibles fourteen years later, the baby got into a fight with a raccoon and transformed into goo. That scene might be the hardest I’ve ever seen my kids laugh.

这些打斗帮助布拉德赢得了两座奥斯卡奖，也让他成为了更好的学习者和领导者。至于约翰，他并没有断然拒绝制作一个黏糊糊的婴儿动画。他只是告诉布拉德，他得再等等。果然，十四年后，当他们终于有机会推出《超人总动员》的续集时，婴儿和一只浣熊打架，变成了黏糊糊的东西。那一幕可能是我见过孩子们笑得最厉害的。

DON’T AGREE TO DISAGREE

不要同意不同意

Hashing out competing views has potential downsides—risks that need to be managed. On the first Incredibles film, a rising star named Nicole Grindle had managed the simulation of the hair, watching John and Brad’s interactions from a distance. When Nicole came in to produce the sequel with John, one of her concerns was that the volume of the arguments between the two highly accomplished leaders might drown out the voices of people who were less comfortable speaking up: newcomers, introverts, women, and minorities. It’s common for people who lack power or status to shift into politician mode, suppressing their dissenting views in favor of conforming to the HIPPO—the HIghest Paid Person’s Opinion. Sometimes they have no other choice if they want to survive.

讨论不同观点存在潜在的弊端——需要管理的风险。在《超人总动员》第一部中，一位名叫妮可·格林德尔的新星负责模拟头发，她从远处观察约翰和布拉德的互动。当妮可加入制作续集时，她担心的一点是，两位成就卓著的领导者之间的争论音量可能会淹没那些不太敢于表达意见的人的声音：新人、内向者、女性和少数族裔。缺乏权力或地位的人通常会进入政客模式，压制自己的不同意见，转而遵循“HIPPO”（最高薪人士的意见）。有时，如果他们想生存下去，就别无选择。

To make sure their desire for approval didn’t prevent them from introducing task conflict, Nicole encouraged new people to bring their divergent ideas to the table. Some voiced them directly to the group; others went to her for feedback and support. Although Nicole wasn’t a pirate, as she found herself advocating for different perspectives she became more comfortable challenging Brad on characters and dialogue. “Brad is still the ornery guy who first came to Pixar, so you have to be ready for a spirited debate when you put forward a contrary point of view.”

为了确保新人渴望获得认可的欲望不会阻碍他们引发任务冲突，妮可鼓励他们提出不同的想法。有些人直接向小组成员表达自己的想法；其他人则向她寻求反馈和支持。妮可虽然不是个“海盗”，但随着她发现自己越来越倾向于支持不同的观点，她也更乐于在角色和对话方面挑战布拉德。“布拉德还是那个刚来皮克斯时脾气暴躁的家伙，所以当你提出相反的观点时，你必须做好迎接激烈辩论的准备。”

The notion of a spirited debate captures something important about how and why good fights happen. If you watch Brad argue with his colleagues—or the pirates fight with one another—you can quickly see that the tension is intellectual, not emotional. The tone is vigorous and feisty rather than combative or aggressive. They don’t disagree just for the sake of it; they disagree because they care. “Whether you disagree loudly, or quietly yet persistently put forward a different perspective,” Nicole explains, “we come together to support the common goal of excellence—of making great films.”

激烈的辩论这一概念，捕捉到了关于良性争斗发生的原因和方式的重要信息。如果你观察布拉德与同事的争论，或者海盗们之间的争斗，你很快就会发现，这种紧张感源于理智，而非情感。他们的语气充满活力、激烈激烈，而非好斗或咄咄逼人。他们并非为了争吵而争吵，而是因为他们在乎。“无论你是大声反对，还是默默地坚持不同观点，”妮可解释说，“我们走到一起，是为了支持共同的目标——打造卓越的电影。”

After seeing their interactions up close, I finally understood what had long felt like a contradiction in my own personality: how I could be highly agreeable and still cherish a good argument. Agreeableness is about seeking social harmony, not cognitive consensus. It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Although I’m terrified of hurting other people’s feelings, when it comes to challenging their thoughts, I have no fear. In fact, when I argue with someone, it’s not a display of disrespect—it’s a sign of respect. It means I value their views enough to contest them. If their opinions didn’t matter to me, I wouldn’t bother. I know I have chemistry with someone when we find it delightful to prove each other wrong.

近距离观察他们的互动后，我终于明白了自己性格中长期以来一直存在的矛盾：我怎么能既非常随和，又仍然珍视一场好的争论。随和的本质在于寻求社会和谐，而非认知共识。表达不同意见而不令人不快是可能的。虽然我害怕伤害别人的感情，但当挑战他们的想法时，我无所畏惧。事实上，当我与某人争论时，这并不是不尊重的表现——而是一种尊重的表现。这意味着我足够重视他们的观点，愿意与之抗争。如果他们的观点对我来说无关紧要，我就不会费心去争论。当我们乐于证明对方是错的时，我知道我们之间有默契。

Agreeable people don’t always steer clear of conflict. They’re highly attuned to the people around them and often adapt to the norms in the room. My favorite demonstration is an experiment by my colleagues Jennifer Chatman and Sigal Barsade. Agreeable people were significantly more accommodating than disagreeable ones—as long as they were in a cooperative team. When they were assigned to a competitive team, they acted just as disagreeably as their disagreeable teammates.

随和的人并不总是回避冲突。他们高度关注周围的人，并经常适应房间里的规范。我最喜欢的例子是我的同事詹妮弗·查特曼和西格尔·巴萨德做的一个实验。随和的人比不随和的人更容易通情达理——只要他们身处合作的团队。当他们被分配到一个竞争激烈的团队时，他们的行为举止和不随和的队友一样令人不快。

That’s how working with Brad Bird influenced John Walker. John’s natural tendency is to avoid conflict: at restaurants, if the waiter brings him the wrong dish, he just goes ahead and eats it anyway. “But when I’m involved in something bigger than myself,” he observes, “I feel like I have an opportunity, a responsibility really, to speak up, speak out, debate. Fight like hell when the morning whistle blows, but go out for a beer after the one at five o’clock.”

与布拉德·伯德的合作对约翰·沃克的影响就是这样的。约翰的天性是避免冲突：在餐厅，如果服务员上错了菜，他就会照做，不管怎样都吃掉。“但当我参与到比自身更重要的事情中时，”他评论道，“我感觉自己有机会，实际上也有责任，去表达、去辩论。早上的哨声响起时，我会拼命争吵，但五点钟之后，就出去喝杯啤酒吧。”

That adaptability was also visible in the Wright brothers’ relationship. In Wilbur, Orville had a built-in challenge network. Wilbur was known to be highly disagreeable: he was unfazed by other people’s opinions and had a habit of pouncing on anyone else’s idea the moment it was raised. Orville was known as gentle, cheerful, and sensitive to criticism. Yet those qualities seemed to vanish in his partnership with his brother. “He’s such a good scrapper,” Wilbur said. One sleepless night Orville came up with an idea to build a rudder that was movable rather than fixed. The next morning at breakfast, as he got ready to pitch the idea to Wilbur, Orville winked at a colleague of theirs, expecting Wilbur to go into challenge mode and demolish it. Much to his surprise, Wilbur saw the potential in the idea immediately, and it became one of their major discoveries.

这种适应性在莱特兄弟的关系中也显而易见。奥维尔和威尔伯之间建立起了内在的挑战网络。威尔伯以极度不讨人喜欢而闻名：他不为别人的意见所动，而且习惯于别人一提出新想法就猛烈抨击。奥维尔则以温和、开朗和对批评敏感而闻名。然而，这些品质在他和兄弟的合作中似乎消失了。“他真是个好斗的人，”威尔伯说。一个不眠之夜，奥维尔突然想出了一个主意，要制造一个可移动的、而不是固定的方向舵。第二天早上吃早餐时，奥维尔正准备向威尔伯推销这个想法，却朝他们的一位同事眨了眨眼，以为威尔伯会进入挑战模式，把它推翻。令他惊讶的是，威尔伯立刻就发现了这个想法的潜力，它最终成为了他们重大发现之一。

Disagreeable people don’t just challenge us to think again. They also make agreeable people comfortable arguing, too. Instead of fleeing from friction, our grumpy colleagues engage it directly. By making it clear that they can handle a tussle, they create a norm for the rest of us to follow. If we’re not careful, though, what starts as a scuffle can turn into a brawl. How can we avoid that slippery slope?

不友善的人不仅会让我们反思，他们还会让友善的人乐于争论。脾气暴躁的同事不会逃避摩擦，而是会直接参与其中。他们明确表示自己能够处理争执，从而为我们其他人树立了遵守的规范。然而，如果我们不小心，最初的争吵可能会演变成一场斗殴。我们该如何避免这种滑坡呢？

GETTING HOT WITHOUT GETTING MAD

不生气却很火爆

A major problem with task conflict is that it often spills over into relationship conflict. One minute you’re disagreeing about how much seasoning to put on the Thanksgiving turkey, and the next minute you find yourself yelling “You smell!”

任务冲突的一个主要问题是，它常常会蔓延到人际关系冲突。前一分钟你们还在争论感恩节火鸡要放多少调料，下一分钟你就发现自己在大喊：“你身上好臭！”

Although the Wright brothers had a lifetime of experience discovering each other’s hot buttons, that didn’t mean they always kept their cool. Their last grand challenge before liftoff was their single hardest problem: designing a propeller. They knew their airplane couldn’t take flight without one, but the right kind didn’t exist. As they struggled with various approaches, they argued back and forth for hours at a time, often raising their voices. The feuding lasted for months as each took turns preaching the merits of his own solutions and prosecuting the other’s points. Eventually their younger sister, Katharine, threatened to leave the house if they didn’t stop fighting. They kept at it anyway, until one night it culminated in what might have been the loudest shouting match of their lives.

尽管莱特兄弟一生都在探索彼此的痛点，但这并不意味着他们总是保持冷静。他们升空前的最后一项重大挑战是他们面临的最棘手的问题：设计螺旋桨。他们知道没有螺旋桨，他们的飞机就无法起飞，但又找不到合适的螺旋桨。在各种方案中苦苦挣扎时，他们一次争论数小时，常常大声嚷嚷。这场争吵持续了数月，他们轮流宣扬自己方案的优点，并驳斥对方的观点。最终，他们的妹妹凯瑟琳威胁说，如果他们不停止争吵，就离开家。他们仍然坚持下去，直到一天晚上，这场可能是他们一生中最激烈的争吵达到了顶峰。

Strangely, the next morning, they came into the shop and acted as if nothing had happened. They picked up the argument about the propeller right where they had left off—only now without the yelling. Soon they were both rethinking their assumptions and stumbling onto what would become one of their biggest breakthroughs.

奇怪的是，第二天早上，他们来到店里，却像什么事都没发生过一样。他们又继续了关于螺旋桨的争论——只是这次没有了争吵。很快，他们都重新思考了自己的假设，并偶然发现了他们未来最大的突破之一。

The Wright brothers were masters at having intense task conflict without relationship conflict. When they raised their voices, it reflected intensity rather than hostility. As their mechanic marveled, “I don’t think they really got mad, but they sure got awfully hot.”

莱特兄弟擅长处理激烈的任务冲突，而不会引发人际关系冲突。当他们提高嗓门时，反映的不是敌意，而是强烈的紧张感。正如他们的机械师惊叹的那样：“我觉得他们并没有真的生气，但他们肯定很生气。”

Experiments show that simply framing a dispute as a debate rather than as a disagreement signals that you’re receptive to considering dissenting opinions and changing your mind, which in turn motivates the other person to share more information with you. A disagreement feels personal and potentially hostile; we expect a debate to be about ideas, not emotions. Starting a disagreement by asking, “Can we debate?” sends a message that you want to think like a scientist, not a preacher or a prosecutor—and encourages the other person to think that way, too.

实验表明，简单地将争议定义为辩论而非分歧，表明你愿意考虑不同意见并改变主意，这反过来会促使对方与你分享更多信息。分歧会让人感觉像是针对个人的，甚至可能带有敌意；我们预期辩论关乎的是理念，而非情绪。以“我们可以辩论吗？”开头提出分歧，可以传达出你想要像科学家而不是传教士或检察官那样思考的信息，同时也会鼓励对方也这样思考。

The Wright brothers had the benefit of growing up in a family where disagreements were seen as productive and enjoyable. When arguing with others, though, they often had to go out of their way to reframe their behavior. “Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other’s eyes so both can see clearly,” Wilbur once wrote to a colleague whose ego was bruised after a fiery exchange about aeronautics. Wilbur stressed that it wasn’t personal: he saw arguments as opportunities to test and refine their thinking. “I see that you are back at your old trick of giving up before you are half beaten in an argument. I feel pretty certain of my own ground but was anticipating the pleasure of a good scrap before the matter was settled. Discussion brings out new ways of looking at things.”

莱特兄弟受益于成长在一个将分歧视为有益且令人愉悦的家庭。然而，当与他人争论时，他们常常不得不费力地调整自己的行为。“诚实的争论只不过是一个互相挑出对方眼中的梁木和尘埃，以便双方都能看清的过程，”威尔伯曾写信给一位同事，这位同事在一次关于航空学的激烈争论后自尊心受挫。威尔伯强调，这并非针对个人：他把争论视为检验和完善彼此思维的机会。“我看你又故技重施，在争论中还没被打到一半就放弃。我对自己的立场很有把握，但在事情尘埃落定之前，我期待着一场精彩的争吵。讨论能带来看待事物的新视角。”

When they argued about the propeller, the Wright brothers were making a common mistake. Each was preaching about why he was right and why the other was wrong. When we argue about why, we run the risk of becoming emotionally attached to our positions and dismissive of the other side’s. We’re more likely to have a good fight if we argue about how .

莱特兄弟在争论螺旋桨时，犯了一个常见的错误。他们每个人都在宣扬自己为什么正确，而对方为什么错误。当我们争论“为什么”时，我们很容易陷入对自己立场的情感依赖，而对对方的立场不屑一顾。如果我们争论“如何”的问题，更有可能引发一场激烈的争吵。

When social scientists asked people why they favor particular policies on taxes, health care, or nuclear sanctions, they often doubled down on their convictions. Asking people to explain how those policies would work in practice—or how they’d explain them to an expert—activated a rethinking cycle. They noticed gaps in their knowledge, doubted their conclusions, and became less extreme; they were now more curious about alternative options.

当社会科学家询问人们为什么支持某些税收、医疗保健或核制裁政策时，他们往往会加倍强调自己的信念。而当要求人们解释这些政策在实践中如何运作，或者如何向专家解释这些政策时，他们又会重新思考。他们注意到了自身知识上的不足，开始怀疑自己的结论，并变得不那么极端；现在，他们对其他选择更加好奇。

Psychologists find that many of us are vulnerable to an illusion of explanatory depth. Take everyday objects like a bicycle, a piano, or earbuds: how well do you understand them? People tend to be overconfident in their knowledge: they believe they know much more than they actually do about how these objects work. We can help them see the limits of their understanding by asking them to unpack the mechanisms. How do the gears on a bike work? How does a piano key make music? How do earbuds transmit sound from your phone to your ears? People are surprised by how much they struggle to answer those questions and quickly realize how little they actually know. That’s what happened to the Wright brothers after their yelling match.

心理学家发现，我们很多人都容易受到解释深度错觉的影响。以自行车、钢琴或耳机等日常用品为例：你对它们了解多少？人们往往对自己的知识过于自信：他们认为自己对这些物品的工作原理了解得比实际要多得多。我们可以让他们剖析这些机械装置，帮助他们认识到自己理解的局限性。自行车上的齿轮是如何工作的？钢琴键是如何演奏音乐的？耳机是如何将手机中的声音传到耳朵里的？人们会惊讶地发现，他们回答这些问题有多么困难，并很快意识到自己实际上知道的是多么少。莱特兄弟在大喊大叫之后就是这样的。

The next morning, the Wright brothers approached the propeller problem differently. Orville showed up at the shop first and told their mechanic that he had been wrong: they should design the propeller Wilbur’s way. Then Wilbur arrived and started arguing against his own idea, suggesting that Orville might be right.

第二天早上，莱特兄弟换了一种方式来解决螺旋桨问题。奥维尔第一个来到修理厂，告诉技工他错了：他们应该按照威尔伯的方式设计螺旋桨。然后威尔伯来了，开始反驳自己的方案，暗示奥维尔可能是对的。

As they shifted into scientist mode, they focused less on why different solutions would succeed or fail, and more on how those solutions might work. Finally they identified problems with both of their approaches, and realized they were both wrong. “We worked out a theory of our own on the subject, and soon discovered,” Orville wrote, “that all the propellers built heretofore are all wrong .” He exclaimed that their new design was “ all right (till we have a chance to test them down at Kitty Hawk and find out differently).”

当他们转入科学家模式时，他们不再关注不同解决方案成功或失败的原因，而是更多地关注这些解决方案如何发挥作用。最终，他们发现了两种方法都存在问题，并意识到它们都是错误的。“我们就这个问题提出了自己的理论，但很快发现，”奥维尔写道，“迄今为止制造的所有螺旋桨都是错误的。” 他惊呼，他们的新设计“完全正确（直到我们有机会在小鹰号上进行测试，发现不同的结果）。”

Even after building a better solution, they were still open to rethinking it. At Kitty Hawk, they found that it was indeed the right one. The Wright brothers had figured out that their airplane didn’t need a propeller. It needed two propellers, spinning in opposite directions, to function like a rotating wing.

即使在找到了更好的解决方案之后，他们仍然愿意重新思考。在基蒂霍克，他们发现这确实是正确的方案。莱特兄弟已经意识到，他们的飞机不需要螺旋桨。它需要两个螺旋桨，以相反的方向旋转，才能像旋转机翼一样运作。

That’s the beauty of task conflict. In a great argument, our adversary is not a foil, but a propeller. With twin propellers spinning in divergent directions, our thinking doesn’t get stuck on the ground; it takes flight.

这就是任务冲突的魅力所在。在一场精彩的辩论中，我们的对手不是陪衬，而是螺旋桨。双螺旋桨朝着不同的方向旋转，我们的思维就不会停滞不前，而是腾飞起来。

PART II

第二部分

Interpersonal Rethinking

人际反思

Opening Other People’s Minds

开阔他人的思维

CHAPTER 5 第五章

Dances with Foes

与敌人共舞

How to Win Debates and Influence People

如何赢得辩论并影响他人

Exhausting someone in argument is not the same as convincing him.

—Tim Kreider

在争论中耗尽对方的力气并不等于说服他。——蒂姆·克雷德

At thirty-one, Harish Natarajan has won three dozen international debate tournaments. He’s been told it’s a world record. But his opponent today presents a unique challenge.

31岁的哈里什·纳塔拉詹已经赢得了36场国际辩论锦标赛的冠军。据说这创下了世界纪录。但他今天的对手对他来说是一个独特的挑战。

Debra Jo Prectet is a prodigy hailing from Haifa, Israel. She’s just eight years old, and although she made her first foray into public debating only last summer, she’s been preparing for this moment for years. Debra has absorbed countless articles to accumulate knowledge, closely studied speechwriting to hone her clarity, and even practiced her delivery to incorporate humor. Now she’s ready to challenge the champion himself. Her parents are hoping she’ll make history.

黛布拉·乔·普雷克特（Debra Jo Prectet）是一位来自以色列海法的天才辩论选手。她才八岁，虽然去年夏天才首次参加公开辩论，但为了这一刻，她已经准备了多年。黛布拉阅读了无数文章积累知识，刻苦钻研演讲稿，提升了思路清晰，甚至还练习了演讲技巧，融入了幽默元素。现在，她已经准备好挑战冠军了。她的父母希望她能创造历史。

Harish was a wunderkind too. By the time he was eight, he was outmaneuvering his own parents in dinner-table debates about the Indian caste system. He went on to become the European debate champion and a grand finalist in the world debate championship, and coached the Filipino national school debate team at the world championship. I was introduced to Harish by an unusually bright former student who used to compete against him, and remembers having lost “many (likely all)” of their debates.

哈里什也是一位神童。八岁时，他就在餐桌上关于印度种姓制度的辩论中胜过自己的父母。后来，他成为了欧洲辩论冠军，并进入了世界辩论锦标赛的决赛，并在世界锦标赛上担任菲律宾国家学校辩论队的教练。我是由一位曾经与他竞争的、非常聪明的校友介绍给哈里什的，这位校友还记得，在“很多场（可能是所有场）”辩论中，我都输了。

Harish and Debra are facing off in San Francisco in February 2019 in front of a large crowd. They’ve been kept in the dark about the debate topic. When they walk onstage, the moderator announces the subject: should preschools be subsidized by the government?

2019年2月，哈里什和黛布拉在旧金山面对众多观众展开对决。辩论主题一直被隐瞒。当他们走上舞台时，主持人宣布了主题：幼儿园是否应该由政府补贴？

After just fifteen minutes of preparation, Debra will present her strongest arguments in favor of subsidies, and Harish will marshal his best case against them. Their goal is to win the audience over to their side on preschool subsidies, but their impact on me will be much broader: they’ll end up changing my view of what it takes to win a debate.

仅仅十五分钟的准备之后，黛布拉就会提出她最有力的支持补贴的论点，而哈里什则会拿出他最有力的反驳理由。他们的目标是争取观众支持学前教育补贴，但他们对我的影响远不止于此：他们最终会改变我对如何赢得辩论的看法。

Debra kicks off with a joke, drawing laughter from the crowd by telling Harish that although he may hold the world record in debate wins, he’s never debated someone like her. Then she goes on to summarize an impressive number of studies—citing her sources—about the academic, social, and professional benefits of preschool programs. For good measure, she quotes a former prime minister’s argument about preschool being a smart investment.

黛布拉以一个笑话开场，她告诉哈里什，虽然他可能是辩论胜场数的世界纪录保持者，但他从未与像她这样的人辩论过，引得全场哄堂大笑。随后，她总结了大量研究——引用了她的资料来源——关于学前教育项目在学术、社会和职业发展方面的益处。此外，她还引用了一位前总理关于学前教育是一项明智投资的观点。

Harish acknowledges the facts that Debra presented, but then makes his case that subsidizing preschools is not the appropriate remedy for the damage caused by poverty. He suggests that the issue should be evaluated on two grounds: whether preschool is currently underprovided and underconsumed, and whether it helps those who are the least fortunate. He argues that in a world full of trade-offs, subsidizing preschool is not the best use of taxpayer money.

哈里什承认黛布拉提出的事实，但随后又指出，补贴幼儿园并非弥补贫困造成的损害的良方。他建议，应该从两个角度来评估这个问题：目前幼儿园的供给和消费是否不足，以及幼儿园是否能帮助那些最不幸的人。他认为，在一个充满权衡的世界里，补贴幼儿园并非纳税人资金的最佳用途。

Going into the debate, 92 percent of the audience has already made up their minds. I’m one of them: it didn’t take me long to figure out where I stood on preschool subsidies. In the United States, public education is free from kindergarten through high school. I’m familiar with evidence that early access to education in the first few years of children’s lives may be even more critical to helping them escape poverty than anything they learn later. I believe education is a fundamental human right, like access to water, food, shelter, and health care. That puts me on Team Debra. As I watch the debate, her early arguments strike a chord. Here are some highlights:

进入辩论环节，92%的观众已经做出了决定。我也是其中之一：没过多久，我就明确了自己的立场，那就是支持学前教育补贴。在美国，从幼儿园到高中的公立教育都是免费的。我熟悉的证据表明，在儿童生命最初几年接受早期教育，对于帮助他们摆脱贫困，可能比他们日后学到的任何知识都更为重要。我相信教育是一项基本人权，就像获得水、食物、住所和医疗保健一样。这让我加入了黛布拉阵营。在观看辩论的过程中，她早期的论点引起了我的共鸣。以下是一些精彩内容：

Debra: Research clearly shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome the disadvantages often associated with poverty.

黛布拉：研究清楚地表明，良好的幼儿园可以帮助孩子们克服贫困带来的不利因素。

Data for the win! Be still, my beating heart.

数据赢了！静下来吧，我跳动的心。

Debra: You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities . . . he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for preschools. I would like to ask you, Mr. Natarajan . . . why don’t we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly?

黛布拉：今天你可能会听到我的对手谈论不同的优先事项……他可能会说需要补贴，但不是针对幼儿园。我想问你，纳塔拉詹先生……我们为什么不先研究一下证据和数据，然后再做决定呢？

If Harish has an Achilles’ heel, my former student has told me, it’s that his brilliant arguments aren’t always grounded in facts.

我的前学生告诉我，如果哈里什有致命弱点，那就是他精彩的论点并不总是基于事实。

Harish: Let me start by examining the main claim . . . that if we believe preschools are good in principle, surely it is worth giving money to subsidize those—but I don’t think that is ever enough of a justification for subsidies.

哈里什：首先让我来分析一下主要观点……如果我们认为幼儿园在原则上是好的，那么肯定值得拨款来补贴它们——但我认为这并不足以成为补贴的理由。

Debra has clearly done her homework. She didn’t just nail Harish on data—she anticipated his counterargument.

黛布拉显然做足了功课。她不仅用数据证明了哈里什的论点，还预料到了他的反驳。

Debra: The state budget is a big one, and there is room in it to subsidize preschools and invest in other fields. Therefore, the idea that there are more important things to spend on is irrelevant, because the different subsidies are not mutually exclusive.

Debra：国家预算很大，有足够的空间来补贴幼儿园和投资其他领域。因此，认为有更重要的事情需要花钱的想法是无关紧要的，因为不同的补贴并不相互排斥。

Way to debunk Harish’s case for trade-offs. Bravo.

揭穿哈里什的权衡之说，真是妙招。太棒了。

Harish: Maybe the state has the budget to do all the good things. Maybe the state has the budget to provide health care. Maybe it has the budget to provide welfare payments. Maybe it has the budget to provide running water as well as preschool. I would love to live in that world, but I don’t think that is the world we live in. I think we live in a world where there are real constraints on what governments can spend money on—and even if those are not real, those are nonetheless political.

哈里什：也许国家有足够的预算去做所有有益的事情。也许国家有足够的预算来提供医疗保健。也许国家有足够的预算来提供福利金。也许国家有足够的预算来提供自来水和幼儿园。我渴望生活在那样的世界，但我认为那不是我们现在所处的世界。我认为我们生活在一个政府支出受到真正限制的世界——即使这些限制并非真实存在，但无论如何，它们都是政治因素。

D’oh! Valid point. Even if a program has the potential to pay for itself, it takes a lot of political capital to make it happen—capital that could be invested elsewhere.

哦！说得对。即使一个项目有潜力收回成本，也需要大量的政治资本才能实现——这些资本本来可以投资于其他地方。

Debra: Giving opportunities to the less fortunate should be a moral obligation of any human being, and it is a key role for the state. To be clear, we should find the funding for preschools and not rely on luck or market forces. This issue is too important to not have a safety net.

Debra：为弱势群体提供机会应该是每个人的道德义务，也是国家的关键职责。需要明确的是，我们应该为幼儿园筹集资金，而不是依赖运气或市场力量。这个问题太重要了，不能没有安全网。

Yes! This is more than a political or an economic question. It’s a moral question.

是的！这不仅仅是一个政治或经济问题，而是一个道德问题。

Harish: I want to start by noting what [we] agree on. We agree that poverty is terrible. It is terrible when individuals do not have running water. It is terrible when . . . they are struggling to feed their family. It is terrible when they cannot get health care. . . . That is all terrible, and those are all things we need to address, and none of those are addressed just because you are going to subsidize preschool. Why is that the case?

哈里什：首先我想说说我们达成的共识。我们都认为贫困很可怕。连自来水都用不上，这很可怕。他们连养家糊口都困难，这很可怕。他们得不到医疗保健，这也很可怕……这些都很糟糕，都是我们需要解决的问题，而仅仅因为要补贴幼儿园教育，这些问题都没有得到解决。为什么会这样呢？

Hmm. Can Debra argue otherwise?

嗯。黛布拉能反驳吗？

Debra: Universal full-day preschool creates significant economic savings in health care as well as decreased crime, welfare dependence, and child abuse.

Harish: High-quality preschools will reduce crime. Maybe, but so would other measures in terms of crime prevention.

Debra: High-quality preschool boosts high school graduation rates.

Harish: High-quality preschools can lead to huge improvements in individuals’ lives. Maybe, but I’m not sure if you massively increase the number of people going to preschool, they’re all gonna be the ones going to the high-quality preschools.

Debra：全日制幼儿园的普及不仅能显著节省医疗保健方面的经济成本，还能降低犯罪率、减少对福利的依赖以及减少虐待儿童。Harish：高质量的幼儿园确实能降低犯罪率。或许如此，但其他预防犯罪的措施也能起到同样的作用。Debra：高质量的幼儿园能提高高中毕业率。Harish：高质量的幼儿园能极大地改善个人生活。或许如此，但我不确定，如果大幅增加幼儿园入学人数，他们是否都会去高质量的幼儿园。

Uh-oh. Harish is right: there’s a risk that children from the poorest families will end up in the worst preschools. I’m starting to rethink my position.

哎呀。哈里什说得对：最贫困家庭的孩子最终上最差的幼儿园确实存在风险。我开始重新思考我的立场了。

Harish: Even when you subsidize preschools, it doesn’t mean that all individuals go. . . . The question is, who do you help? And the people you don’t help are those individuals who are the poorest. You give unfair and exaggerated gains to those individuals who are in the middle class.

哈里什：即使你补贴幼儿园，也不意味着所有人都会去……问题是，你帮助了谁？你不帮助的正是那些最贫困的人。你给那些中产阶级带来了不公平且夸大的收益。

Point taken. Since preschool won’t be free, the underprivileged still might not be able to afford it. Now I’m torn about where I stand.

我明白了。既然幼儿园不免费，贫困家庭可能还是负担不起。现在我对自己的态度很纠结。

You’ve seen arguments from both sides. Before I tell you who won, consider your own position: what was your opinion of preschool subsidies going into the debate, and how many times did you end up rethinking that opinion?

你已经看到了双方的争论。在我告诉你谁赢了之前，先想想你自己的立场：在辩论开始之前，你对学前教育补贴的看法是什么？你最终又重新思考了多少次这个看法？

If you’re like me, you reconsidered your views multiple times. Changing your mind doesn’t make you a flip-flopper or a hypocrite. It means you were open to learning.

如果你像我一样，你曾多次重新考虑过自己的观点。改变主意并不意味着你是一个反复无常的人或伪君子。这意味着你愿意学习。

Looking back, I’m disappointed in myself for forming an opinion before the debate even started. Sure, I’d read some research on early child development, but I was clueless about the economics of subsidies and the alternative ways those funds could be invested. Note to self: on my next trip to the top of Mount Stupid, remember to take a selfie.

回想起来，我对自己在辩论开始前就形成观点感到很失望。当然，我读过一些关于儿童早期发展的研究，但对补贴的经济学原理以及这些资金的其他投资方式一无所知。提醒自己：下次去“愚蠢山”顶峰的时候，记得自拍一张。

In the audience poll after the debate, the number of undecided people was the same, but the balance of opinion shifted away from Debra’s position, toward Harish’s. Support for preschool subsidies dropped from 79 to 62 percent, and opposition more than doubled from 13 to 30 percent. Debra not only had more data, better evidence, and more evocative imagery—she had the audience on her side going into the debate. Yet Harish convinced a number of us to rethink our positions. How did he do it, and what can we learn from him about the art of debate?

在辩论结束后的观众投票中，未决人数保持不变，但意见的天平从黛布拉的立场转向了哈里什的立场。支持学前教育补贴的人数从79%下降到62%，反对的人数则从13%上升到30%，翻了一番多。黛布拉不仅拥有更多数据、更确凿的证据和更引人入胜的形象，而且在辩论开始时就赢得了观众的支持。然而，哈里什说服了我们中的一些人重新思考自己的立场。他是怎么做到的？我们又能从他身上学到哪些辩论的艺术呢？

This section of the book is about convincing other people to rethink their opinions. When we’re trying to persuade people, we frequently take an adversarial approach. Instead of opening their minds, we effectively shut them down or rile them up. They play defense by putting up a shield, play offense by preaching their perspectives and prosecuting ours, or play politics by telling us what we want to hear without changing what they actually think. I want to explore a more collaborative approach—one in which we show more humility and curiosity, and invite others to think more like scientists.

本书的这一部分探讨的是说服他人重新思考自己的观点。当我们试图说服他人时，我们常常采取对抗性的方式。我们非但没有打开他们的思路，反而有效地压制他们或激怒他们。他们要么筑起盾牌进行防御，要么宣扬他们的观点并批判我们的观点进行攻击，要么玩弄政治手腕，只说我们想听的话，却不改变他们实际的想法。我希望探索一种更具合作性的方式——一种我们展现更多谦逊和好奇心，并邀请其他人更像科学家一样思考的方式。

THE SCIENCE OF THE DEAL

交易的科学

A few years ago a former student named Jamie called me for advice on where to go to business school. Since she was already well on her way to building a successful career, I told her it was a waste of time and money. I walked her through the lack of evidence that a graduate degree would make a tangible difference in her future, and the risk that she’d end up overqualified and underexperienced. When she insisted that her employer expected an MBA for promotions, I told her that I knew of exceptions and pointed out that she probably wouldn’t spend her whole career at that firm anyway. Finally, she hit back: “You’re a logic bully!”

几年前，一位名叫杰米的校友打电话给我，咨询去哪里读商学院。由于她已经在通往成功的职业生涯的道路上稳步前进，我告诉她，读商学院纯粹是浪费时间和金钱。我向她解释了，缺乏证据表明研究生学位会对她的未来产生切实的影响，以及她最终可能资历过高、经验不足的风险。当她坚持认为雇主希望获得MBA学位才能晋升时，我告诉她我知道一些例外情况，并指出她很可能也不会在那家公司度过整个职业生涯。最后，她反驳道：“你真是个逻辑霸道！”

A what?

什么？

“A logic bully,” Jamie repeated. “You just overwhelmed me with rational arguments, and I don’t agree with them, but I can’t fight back.”

“逻辑霸凌，”杰米重复道，“你刚才用理性的论据把我压垮了，我虽然不同意，但我无力反驳。”

At first I was delighted by the label. It felt like a solid description of one of my roles as a social scientist: to win debates with the best data. Then Jamie explained that my approach wasn’t actually helpful. The more forcefully I argued, the more she dug in her heels. Suddenly I realized I had instigated that same kind of resistance many times before.

起初，我很喜欢这个标签。它感觉就像是对社会科学家职责之一的完美诠释：用最精准的数据赢得辩论。后来杰米解释说，我的方法其实没什么用。我越是强硬地争论，她就越是固执己见。我突然意识到，我以前也多次激起了她同样的抵触情绪。

David Sipress/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast

David Sipress/纽约客收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast

Growing up, I was taught by my karate sensei never to start a fight unless I was prepared to be the only one standing at the end. That’s how I approached debates at work and with friends: I thought the key to victory was to go into battle armed with airtight logic and rigorous data. The harder I attacked, though, the harder my opponents fought back. I was laser-focused on convincing them to accept my views and rethink theirs, but I was coming across like a preacher and a prosecutor. Although those mindsets sometimes motivated me to persist in making my points, I often ended up alienating my audience. I was not winning.

在我的成长过程中，我的空手道老师教导我，除非我做好了成为最后唯一幸存者的准备，否则永远不要主动挑起争端。在工作中和与朋友的辩论中，我也是这么处理的：我认为胜利的关键在于用严密的逻辑和严谨的数据武装自己。然而，我攻击得越猛烈，对手反击得越猛烈。我一心想说服他们接受我的观点，并重新思考他们的观点，但我给人的印象却像个传教士和检察官。虽然这些心态有时会激励我坚持自己的观点，但最终我常常疏远了我的听众。我并没有赢得胜利。

For centuries, debating has been prized as an art form, but there’s now a growing science of how to do it well. In a formal debate your goal is to change the mind of your audience. In an informal debate, you’re trying to change the mind of your conversation partner. That’s a kind of negotiation, where you’re trying to reach an agreement about the truth. To build my knowledge and skills about how to win debates, I studied the psychology of negotiations and eventually used what I’d learned to teach bargaining skills to leaders across business and government. I came away convinced that my instincts—and what I’d learned in karate—were dead wrong.

几个世纪以来，辩论一直被视为一门艺术，但如今，关于如何更好地进行辩论的科学研究也日益增多。在正式辩论中，你的目标是改变听众的想法。在非正式辩论中，你试图改变对话伙伴的想法。这是一种谈判，你试图就真相达成一致。为了积累赢得辩论的知识和技能，我学习了谈判心理学，并最终运用所学知识向商界和政界的领导者传授谈判技巧。最终，我确信我的直觉——以及我在空手道中学到的知识——完全错误。

A good debate is not a war. It’s not even a tug-of-war, where you can drag your opponent to your side if you pull hard enough on the rope. It’s more like a dance that hasn’t been choreographed, negotiated with a partner who has a different set of steps in mind. If you try too hard to lead, your partner will resist. If you can adapt your moves to hers, and get her to do the same, you’re more likely to end up in rhythm.

一场好的辩论并非战争。它甚至不是拔河，只要你用力拉绳子，就能把对手拉到你这边。它更像是一场未经编排的舞蹈，没有经过与舞步不同的舞伴商量。如果你过于努力地引导，你的舞伴会抗拒。如果你能调整自己的动作以适应她的节奏，并让她也这样做，你们更有可能最终找到节奏。

In a classic study, a team of researchers led by Neil Rackham examined what expert negotiators do differently. They recruited one group of average negotiators and another group of highly skilled ones, who had significant track records of success and had been rated as effective by their counterparts. To compare the participants’ techniques, they recorded both groups doing labor and contract negotiations.

在一项经典研究中，尼尔·拉克姆（Neil Rackham）领导的研究团队考察了谈判专家们在谈判技巧上有何不同。他们招募了一组谈判水平一般的谈判者，以及另一组谈判技巧高超的谈判者，这些谈判者拥有显著的成功记录，并被对方评为高效谈判者。为了比较参与者的谈判技巧，他们记录了两组参与者在劳动和合同谈判中的操作。

In a war, our goal is to gain ground rather than lose it, so we’re often afraid to surrender a few battles. In a negotiation, agreeing with someone else’s argument is disarming. The experts recognized that in their dance they couldn’t stand still and expect the other person to make all the moves. To get in harmony, they needed to step back from time to time.

在战争中，我们的目标是取得进展而不是失败，所以我们常常害怕放弃一些战斗。在谈判中，同意别人的观点可以让人放下戒备。专家们认识到，在谈判中，他们不能停滞不前，指望对方先发制人。为了保持和谐，他们需要时不时地退一步。

One difference was visible before anyone even arrived at the bargaining table. Prior to the negotiations, the researchers interviewed both groups about their plans. The average negotiators went in armed for battle, hardly taking note of any anticipated areas of agreement. The experts, in contrast, mapped out a series of dance steps they might be able to take with the other side, devoting more than a third of their planning comments to finding common ground.

在谈判桌前，双方就一个差异显而易见。在谈判开始前，研究人员采访了两组人，了解他们的计划。普通谈判者全副武装，几乎不去考虑任何预期的协议领域。相比之下，专家们则规划了一系列他们可能与对方采取的行动步骤，并将超过三分之一的计划发言用于寻找共同点。

As the negotiators started discussing options and making proposals, a second difference emerged. Most people think of arguments as being like a pair of scales: the more reasons we can pile up on our side, the more it will tip the balance in our favor. Yet the experts did the exact opposite: They actually presented fewer reasons to support their case. They didn’t want to water down their best points. As Rackham put it, “A weak argument generally dilutes a strong one.”

当谈判人员开始讨论各种方案并提出建议时，第二个差异出现了。大多数人认为，论点就像一副天平：我们能提出的理由越多，就越能将优势转化为优势。然而，专家们的做法却截然相反：他们实际上提出的理由更少，因为他们不想淡化自己最有力的论点。正如拉克姆所说：“一个薄弱的论点通常会削弱一个强有力的论点。”

The more reasons we put on the table, the easier it is for people to discard the shakiest one. Once they reject one of our justifications, they can easily dismiss our entire case. That happened regularly to the average negotiators: they brought too many different weapons to battle. They lost ground not because of the strength of their most compelling point, but because of the weakness of their least compelling one.

我们摆在桌面上的理由越多，对方就越容易抛弃最站不住脚的理由。一旦他们拒绝了我们的某个理由，他们就能轻易驳回我们的整个论点。这种情况在普通谈判者身上屡见不鲜：他们带了太多不同的武器来交锋。他们之所以败北，并非因为他们最有说服力的论点本身就很强大，而是因为他们最没有说服力的论点本身就很薄弱。

These habits led to a third contrast: the average negotiators were more likely to enter into defend-attack spirals. They dismissively shot down their opponents’ proposals and doubled down on their own positions, which prevented both sides from opening their minds. The skilled negotiators rarely went on offense or defense. Instead, they expressed curiosity with questions like “So you don’t see any merit in this proposal at all?”

这些习惯导致了第三个对比：普通谈判者更容易陷入“防守-攻击”的怪圈。他们轻蔑地驳斥对手的提议，并坚持自己的立场，这使得双方都无法敞开心扉。而经验丰富的谈判者很少主动进攻或防守。相反，他们会用“这么说你完全不认为这个提议有什么价值？”这样的问题来表达自己的好奇心。

Questions were the fourth difference between the two groups. Of every five comments the experts made, at least one ended in a question mark. They appeared less assertive, but much like in a dance, they led by letting their partners step forward.

问题是两组之间的第四个差异。专家们每提出五条评论，至少有一条以问号结尾。他们似乎不那么自信，但就像跳舞一样，他们引导着舞伴向前走。

Recent experiments show that having even one negotiator who brings a scientist’s level of humility and curiosity improves outcomes for both parties, because she will search for more information and discover ways to make both sides better off. She isn’t telling her counterparts what to think. She’s asking them to dance. Which is exactly what Harish Natarajan does in a debate.

最近的实验表明，即使只有一位谈判者拥有科学家般的谦逊和好奇心，也能改善双方的结果，因为她会寻找更多信息，并找到让双方都受益的方法。她不是在指挥对手该怎么想，而是在邀请他们共舞。这正是哈里什·纳塔拉詹在辩论中所做的。

DANCING TO THE SAME BEAT

跟着同一个节拍跳舞

Since the audience started out favoring preschool subsidies, there was more room for change in Harish’s direction—but he also had the more difficult task of advocating for the unpopular position. He opened the audience’s mind by taking a page out of the playbook of expert negotiators.

由于听众一开始就支持学前教育补贴，哈里什的立场有更大的调整空间——但他也面临着更艰巨的任务：为这个不受欢迎的立场辩护。他借鉴了谈判专家的策略，开阔了听众的思路。

Harish started by emphasizing common ground. When he took the stage for his rebuttal, he immediately drew attention to his and Debra’s areas of agreement. “So,” he began, “I think we disagree on far less than it may seem.” He called out their alignment on the problem of poverty—and on the validity of some of the studies—before objecting to subsidies as a solution.

哈里什首先强调了共同点。当他上台反驳时，他立即指出了他和黛布拉的共识。“所以，”他开口道，“我认为我们之间的分歧远比表面上看起来的要小。” 他指出，双方在贫困问题以及部分研究的有效性上存在共识，但随后他又反对将补贴作为解决方案。

We won’t have much luck changing other people’s minds if we refuse to change ours. We can demonstrate openness by acknowledging where we agree with our critics and even what we’ve learned from them. Then, when we ask what views they might be willing to revise, we’re not hypocrites.

如果我们拒绝改变自己的想法，就很难改变别人的想法。我们可以展现开放的态度，承认我们与批评者的观点一致，甚至承认我们从他们身上学到了什么。这样，当我们询问他们是否愿意修改哪些观点时，我们才算得上是伪君子。

Convincing other people to think again isn’t just about making a good argument—it’s about establishing that we have the right motives in doing so. When we concede that someone else has made a good point, we signal that we’re not preachers, prosecutors, or politicians trying to advance an agenda. We’re scientists trying to get to the truth. “Arguments are often far more combative and adversarial than they need to be,” Harish told me. “You should be willing to listen to what someone else is saying and give them a lot of credit for it. It makes you sound like a reasonable person who is taking everything into account.”

说服他人重新思考不仅仅是提出一个好的论点，而是要证明我们这样做的动机是正当的。当我们承认别人的观点有道理时，我们是在表明我们不是试图推进某种议程的传教士、检察官或政客。我们是试图探寻真理的科学家。“争论往往比其应有的更具对抗性和对抗性，”哈里什告诉我。“你应该愿意倾听别人的观点，并给予充分的肯定。这会让你听起来像一个通情达理、考虑周全的人。”

Being reasonable literally means that we can be reasoned with, that we’re open to evolving our views in light of logic and data. So in the debate with Harish, why did Debra neglect to do that—why did she overlook common ground?

通情达理的字面意思是，我们能够被理性地对待，我们愿意根据逻辑和数据来发展我们的观点。那么，在与哈里什的辩论中，为什么黛布拉忽略了这一点——为什么她忽视了共同点？

It’s not because Debra is eight years old. It’s because she isn’t human.

这并不是因为黛布拉只有八岁，而是因为她不是人类。

Debra Jo Prectet is an anagram I invented. Her official name is Project Debater, and she’s a machine. More specifically, an artificial intelligence developed by IBM to do for debate what Watson did for chess.

Debra Jo Prectet 是我发明的一个字母组合。她的正式名称是 Project Debater，她是一台机器。更确切地说，是 IBM 开发的一款人工智能，用于辩论，就像 Watson 用来下棋一样。

They first dreamed the idea up in 2011 and started working intensively on it in 2014. Just a few years later, Project Debater had developed the remarkable ability to conduct an intelligent debate in public, complete with facts, coherent sentences, and even counterarguments. Her knowledge corpus consists of 400 million articles, largely from credible newspapers and magazines, and her claim detection engine is designed to locate key arguments, identify their boundaries, and weigh the evidence. For any debate topic, she can instantaneously search her knowledge graph for relevant data points, mold them into a logical case, and deliver it clearly—even entertainingly—in a female voice within the time constraints. Her first words in the preschool subsidy debate were, “Greetings, Harish. I’ve heard you hold the world record in debate competition wins against humans, but I suspect you’ve never debated a machine. Welcome to the future.”

他们于2011年萌生了这个想法，并于2014年开始深入研究。仅仅几年后，“辩论家”项目就发展出了非凡的能力，能够在公开场合进行一场充满智慧的辩论，辩论内容涵盖事实、连贯的语句，甚至还有反驳。她的知识库包含4亿篇文章，主要来自可靠的报刊杂志。她的论点检测引擎旨在定位关键论点，确定其边界，并权衡证据。对于任何辩论主题，她都能即时在知识图谱中搜索相关数据点，将其转化为合乎逻辑的案例，并在限定的时间内用女性的声音清晰地——甚至充满趣味地——进行阐述。在幼儿园补贴辩论赛中，她的第一句话是：“你好，哈里什。我听说你保持着与人类辩论比赛获胜次数的世界纪录，但我怀疑你从未与机器辩论过。欢迎来到未来。”

Of course, it’s possible that Harish won because the audience was biased against the computer and rooting for the human. It’s worth noting, though, that Harish’s approach in that debate is the same one that he’s used to defeat countless humans on international stages. What amazes me is that the computer was able to master multiple complex capabilities while completely missing this crucial one.

当然，哈里什获胜也可能是因为观众对计算机抱有偏见，而支持人类。不过值得注意的是，哈里什在那场辩论中使用的策略与他在国际舞台上击败无数人类选手的策略如出一辙。令我惊讶的是，计算机能够掌握多种复杂的能力，却完全忽略了这一关键技能。

After studying 10 billion sentences, a computer was able to say something funny—a skill that’s normally thought to be confined to sentient beings with high levels of social and emotional intelligence. The computer had learned to make a logical argument and even anticipate the other side’s counterargument. Yet it hadn’t learned to agree with elements of the other side’s argument, apparently because that behavior was all too rarely deployed across 400 million articles by humans. They were usually too busy preaching their arguments, prosecuting their enemies, or politicking for audience support to grant a valid point from the other side.

在学习了100亿个句子之后，计算机能够说出一些有趣的东西——这种技能通常被认为只有具有高社交和情商的生物才具备。计算机已经学会了进行逻辑论证，甚至能够预测对方的反驳。然而，它还没有学会赞同对方论点的某些部分，显然是因为这种行为在人类撰写的4亿篇文章中很少运用。它们通常忙于宣扬自己的观点、攻击对手或进行政治活动以争取受众支持，而无暇承认对方的合理观点。

When I asked Harish how to improve at finding common ground, he offered a surprisingly practical tip. Most people immediately start with a straw man, poking holes in the weakest version of the other side’s case. He does the reverse: he considers the strongest version of their case, which is known as the steel man. A politician might occasionally adopt that tactic to pander or persuade, but like a good scientist, Harish does it to learn. Instead of trying to dismantle the argument that preschool is good for kids, Harish accepted that the point was valid, which allowed him to relate to his opponent’s perspective—and to the audience’s. Then it was perfectly fair and balanced for him to express his concerns about whether a subsidy would give the most underprivileged kids access to preschool.

当我问哈里什如何更好地找到共同点时，他给出了一个出人意料的实用建议。大多数人会立即从稻草人说起，对对方论点中最薄弱的版本进行挑刺。他则相反：他会考虑对方论点中最有力的版本，也就是所谓的“钢铁侠”。政客偶尔也会采用这种策略来迎合或说服，但哈里什就像一位优秀的科学家一样，这样做是为了学习。哈里什没有试图驳斥“幼儿园对孩子有益”的论点，而是承认这个观点是有效的，这让他能够理解对手的观点——以及听众的观点。然后，他就可以公平公正地表达他对补贴能否让最贫困的孩子获得幼儿园教育的担忧。

Drawing attention to common ground and avoiding defend-attack spirals weren’t the only ways in which Harish resembled expert negotiators. He was also careful not to come on too strong.

哈里什不仅注重关注共同点，避免陷入攻守交替的恶性循环，还体现了他作为谈判高手的特质。他还非常注意避免言辞过于强硬。

DON’T STEP ON THEIR TOES

不要踩到他们的脚趾

Harish’s next advantage stemmed from one of his disadvantages. He would never have access to as many facts as the computer. When the audience was polled afterward about who taught them more, the overwhelming majority said they learned more from the computer than from Harish. But it was Harish who succeeded in swaying their opinions. Why?

哈里什的下一个优势源于他的一个劣势。他永远无法像计算机那样掌握那么多信息。课后，当听众被问及谁教给他们更多知识时，绝大多数人表示，他们从计算机那里学到的比从哈里什那里学到的多。但哈里什成功地改变了他们的看法。为什么呢？

The computer piled on study after study to support a long list of reasons in favor of preschool subsidies. Like a skilled negotiator, Harish focused on just two reasons against them. He knew that making too many points could come at the cost of developing, elaborating, and reinforcing his best ones. “If you have too many arguments, you’ll dilute the power of each and every one,” he told me. “They are going to be less well explained, and I don’t know if any of them will land enough—I don’t think the audience will believe them to be important enough. Most top debaters aren’t citing a lot of information.”

电脑把一项又一项的研究堆积起来，列出一长串支持学前教育补贴的理由。哈里什就像一位经验丰富的谈判专家，只专注于反对这些理由的两个方面。他知道，提出太多观点可能会以发展、阐述和强化他最看重的观点为代价。“如果你的论点太多，就会削弱每个论点的力量，”他告诉我。“这些论点的解释不够充分，而且我不知道是否有哪个论点能够足够有力——我认为观众不会认为它们足够重要。大多数顶尖辩手都没有引用太多信息。”

Is this always the best way to approach a debate? The answer is—like pretty much everything else in social science—it depends. The ideal number of reasons varies from one circumstance to another.

这总是处理辩论的最佳方式吗？答案是——就像社会科学中的其他所有事情一样——视情况而定。理想的理由数量因情况而异。

There are times when preaching and prosecuting can make us more persuasive. Research suggests that the effectiveness of these approaches hinges on three key factors: how much people care about the issue, how open they are to our particular argument, and how strong-willed they are in general. If they’re not invested in the issue or they’re receptive to our perspective, more reasons can help: people tend to see quantity as a sign of quality. The more the topic matters to them, the more the quality of reasons matters. It’s when audiences are skeptical of our view, have a stake in the issue, and tend to be stubborn that piling on justifications is most likely to backfire. If they’re resistant to rethinking, more reasons simply give them more ammunition to shoot our views down.

有时候，说教和诉求能让我们更有说服力。研究表明，这些方法的有效性取决于三个关键因素：人们对这个问题的关注程度，他们对我们特定论点的接受程度，以及他们总体上的意志力有多强。如果他们对这个问题不感兴趣，或者他们容易接受我们的观点，那么更多的理由会有所帮助：人们倾向于将数量视为质量的标志。话题对他们越重要，理由的质量就越重要。当听众对我们的观点持怀疑态度、与这个问题息息相关、并且往往固执己见时，堆积如山的理由最有可能适得其反。如果他们拒绝重新思考，更多的理由只会给他们更多弹药来驳斥我们的观点。

It’s not just about the number of reasons, though. It’s also how they fit together. A university once approached me to see if I could bring in donations from alumni who had never given a dime. My colleagues and I ran an experiment testing two different messages meant to convince thousands of resistant alumni to give. One message emphasized the opportunity to do good: donating would benefit students, faculty, and staff. The other emphasized the opportunity to feel good: donors would enjoy the warm glow of giving.

然而，这不仅仅关乎理由的数量，也关乎它们如何相互契合。一所大学曾联系我，看看能否从从未捐过一分钱的校友那里获得捐款。我和同事进行了一项实验，测试了两种不同的信息，旨在说服数千名不愿捐款的校友捐款。一种信息强调了行善的机会：捐款将使学生、教职员工受益。另一种信息强调了获得幸福感的机会：捐款者将享受到捐赠带来的温暖。

The two messages were equally effective: in both cases, 6.5 percent of the stingy alumni ended up donating. Then we combined them, because two reasons are better than one.

这两条信息同样有效：在两种情况下，6.5%的吝啬校友最终都捐了款。然后我们把这两个理由结合起来，因为两个理由总比一个好。

Except they weren’t. When we put the two reasons together, the giving rate dropped below 3 percent. Each reason alone was more than twice as effective as the two combined.

但事实并非如此。当我们把这两个原因放在一起时，捐赠率降到了3%以下。每个原因单独起作用的效果都比两个原因加起来的效果好一倍多。

The audience was already skeptical. When we gave them different kinds of reasons to donate, we triggered their awareness that someone was trying to persuade them—and they shielded themselves against it. A single line of argument feels like a conversation; multiple lines of argument can become an onslaught. The audience tuned out the preacher and summoned their best defense attorney to refute the prosecutor.

观众本来就心存疑虑。当我们给他们各种各样的捐款理由时，他们意识到有人在试图说服他们——于是他们开始自我防御。单一的论点感觉像是一场对话；多条论点则会演变成一场猛烈的攻击。观众不再听牧师的讲道，而是请来了他们最好的辩护律师来反驳检察官。

As important as the quantity and quality of reasons might be, the source matters, too. And the most convincing source is often the one closest to your audience.

理由的数量和质量固然重要，但来源也同样重要。而最有说服力的来源往往是最贴近受众的。

A student in one of my classes, Rachel Breuhaus, noticed that although top college basketball teams have rabid fans, there are usually empty seats in their arenas. To study strategies for motivating more fans to show up, we launched an experiment in the week before an upcoming game targeting hundreds of season ticket holders. When left to their own devices, 77 percent of these supposedly die-hard fans actually made it to the game. We decided that the most persuasive message would come from the team itself, so we sent fans an email with quotes from players and coaches about how part of the home-court advantage stems from the energy of a packed house of cheering fans. It had no effect whatsoever: attendance in that group was 76 percent.

我班上的一位学生，Rachel Breuhaus，注意到尽管顶尖大学篮球队拥有狂热的球迷，但他们的球馆里通常都空着座位。为了研究激励更多球迷到场观赛的策略，我们在比赛前一周针对数百名季票持有者进行了一项实验。在让他们自行决定的情况下，这些所谓的铁杆球迷中，有77%的人最终还是到场观赛。我们认为最有说服力的信息应该来自球队本身，所以我们给球迷们发了一封电子邮件，里面引用了球员和教练的话，说明主场优势部分源于满座球迷的欢呼声。结果却毫无效果：这群球迷的上座率只有76%。

What did move the needle was an email with a different approach. We simply asked fans one question: are you planning to attend? Attendance climbed to 85 percent. The question gave fans the freedom to make their own case for going.

真正起到推动作用的是一封措辞不同的邮件。我们只是问了粉丝一个问题：你们打算去吗？结果出席率飙升到了85%。这个问题给了粉丝们自由表达自己去参加的理由。

Psychologists have long found that the person most likely to persuade you to change your mind is you . You get to pick the reasons you find most compelling, and you come away with a real sense of ownership over them.

心理学家早已发现，最有可能说服你改变主意的人是你自己。你可以选择你认为最有说服力的理由，并最终真正拥有这些理由的主人翁意识。

That’s where Harish’s final edge came in. In every round he posed more questions to contemplate. The computer spoke in declarative sentences, asking just a single question in the opening statement—and directing it at Harish, rather than at the audience. In his opening, Harish asked six different questions for the audience to ponder. Within the first minute, he asserted that just because preschools are good doesn’t mean that they should be funded by the government, and then inquired, “Why is that the case?” He went on to ask whether preschools were underprovided, whether they did help the most disadvantaged—and then why they didn’t, why they were so costly, and who they actually helped instead.

哈里什的最终优势就此显现。每一轮，他都会提出更多问题供观众思考。计算机采用陈述句式，开场白只问一个问题，而且是针对哈里什，而不是观众。哈里什一开场就提出了六个不同的问题供观众思考。在第一分钟内，他断言幼儿园好并不意味着应该由政府资助，然后问道：“为什么会这样？” 他接着问道，幼儿园是否资金不足，是否帮助了最弱势群体，以及为什么没有帮助，为什么收费如此昂贵，以及它们实际上帮助了谁。

Taken together, these techniques increase the odds that during a disagreement, other people will abandon an overconfidence cycle and engage in a rethinking cycle. When we point out that there are areas where we agree and acknowledge that they have some valid points, we model confident humility and encourage them to follow suit. When we support our argument with a small number of cohesive, compelling reasons, we encourage them to start doubting their own opinion. And when we ask genuine questions, we leave them intrigued to learn more. We don’t have to convince them that we’re right—we just need to open their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong. Their natural curiosity might do the rest.

综合起来，这些技巧能够提高其他人在意见分歧时摆脱过度自信循环、进入反思循环的几率。当我们指出我们在某些方面认同他们的观点，并承认他们的观点有其合理性时，我们展现了自信谦逊的榜样，并鼓励他们效仿。当我们用一些有凝聚力、令人信服的理由来支持我们的论点时，我们鼓励他们开始质疑自己的观点。当我们提出真诚的问题时，我们会激发他们进一步了解的兴趣。我们无需说服他们我们是对的——我们只需要让他们敞开心扉，接受他们可能犯错的可能性。他们天生的好奇心或许就能帮上忙。

That said, these steps aren’t always enough. No matter how nicely we ask, other people don’t always want to dance. Sometimes they’re so attached to their beliefs that the mere suggestion of getting in sync feels like an ambush. What do we do then?

话虽如此，这些步骤并不总是足够的。无论我们多么礼貌地邀请，其他人并不总是愿意跳舞。有时他们如此执着于自己的信仰，以至于仅仅是提出要同步的建议就感觉像是被埋伏了。那么我们该怎么办呢？

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HOSTILE

杰基尔博士与霍斯尔先生

Some years ago, a Wall Street firm brought me in to consult on a project to attract and retain junior analysts and associates. After two months of research I submitted a report with twenty-six data-driven recommendations. In the middle of my presentation to the leadership team, one of the members interrupted and asked, “Why don’t we just pay them more?”

几年前，一家华尔街公司聘请我担任一个吸引和留住初级分析师和助理的项目的顾问。经过两个月的研究，我提交了一份报告，其中包含26条基于数据的建议。在我向领导团队进行演示的过程中，一位成员打断了我，问道：“我们为什么不给他们更高的薪水呢？”

I told him money alone probably wouldn’t make a difference. Many studies across a range of industries have shown that once people are earning enough to meet their basic needs, paying them more doesn’t stop them from leaving bad jobs and bad bosses. The executive started arguing with me: “That’s not what I’ve found in my experience.” I fired back in prosecutor mode: “Yes, that’s why I brought you randomized, controlled experiments with longitudinal data: to learn rigorously from many people’s experiences, not idiosyncratically from yours.”

我告诉他，单靠钱可能没什么用。许多跨行业的研究表明，一旦人们的收入足以满足基本需求，再多付钱也阻止不了他们离开糟糕的工作和糟糕的老板。这位高管开始反驳我：“我的经验可不是这样。” 我以检察官的口吻反驳道：“是的，这就是我给你带来随机对照纵向数据实验的原因：严谨地从许多人的经验中学习，而不是从你的经验中套用个人经验。”

The executive pushed back, insisting that his company was different, so I rattled off some basic statistics from his own employees. In surveys and interviews, a grand total of zero had even mentioned compensation. They were already well paid (read: overpaid), and if that could have solved the problem, it already would have. * But the executive still refused to budge. Finally I became so exasperated that I did something out of character. I shot back, “I’ve never seen a group of smart people act so dumb.”

这位高管反驳道，他的公司与众不同，于是我迅速列举了一些他员工的基本数据。在调查和访谈中，提到薪酬的人数竟然为零。他们的薪酬本来就很高（也就是说，薪酬过高），如果这能解决问题，早就解决了。*但这位高管仍然不肯让步。最后，我气得做了一件与我性格不符的事。我反驳道：“我从没见过一群聪明人做这么蠢的事。”

In the hierarchy of disagreement created by computer scientist Paul Graham, the highest form of argument is refuting the central point, and the lowest is name-calling. In a matter of seconds I’d devolved from logic bully to playground bully.

在计算机科学家保罗·格雷厄姆创造的“分歧等级”中，最高级别的争论形式是反驳中心观点，最低级别的则是谩骂。几秒钟之内，我就从逻辑霸凌者沦为操场霸凌者。

If I could do that session over, I’d start with common ground and fewer data points. Instead of attacking their beliefs with my research, I’d ask them what would open their minds to my data.

如果我能重来一次，我会从共同点入手，减少数据点。我不会用我的研究来攻击他们的信念，而是会问他们什么能让他们接受我的数据。

A few years later, I had a chance to test that approach. During a keynote speech on creativity, I cited evidence that Beethoven and Mozart didn’t have higher hit rates than some of their peers; they generated a larger volume of work, which gave them more shots at greatness. A member of the audience interrupted. “Bullsh*t!” he shouted. “You’re disrespecting the great masters of music. You’re totally ignorant—you don’t know what you’re talking about!”

几年后，我有机会检验这种方法。在一次关于创造力的主题演讲中，我引用了一些证据，证明贝多芬和莫扎特的创作成功率并不比他们的一些同辈人高；他们创作的作品数量更多，这让他们有更多机会成就伟大。一位听众打断了我的话。“胡说！”他喊道。“你这是在不尊重音乐大师。你完全无知——你根本不知道自己在说什么！”

Instead of reacting right then, I waited a few minutes until a scheduled break and then made my way to my heckler.

我没有立即做出反应，而是等了几分钟，直到预定的休息时间，然后走向我的捣乱者。

Me: You’re welcome to disagree with the data, but I don’t think that’s a respectful way to express your opinion. It’s not how I was trained to have an intellectual debate. Were you?

Music man: Well, no . . . I just think you’re wrong.

Me: It’s not my opinion—it’s the independent finding of two different social scientists. What evidence would change your mind?

Music man: I don’t believe you can quantify a musician’s greatness, but I’d like to see the research.

我：你可以对数据表示异议，但我认为这不是表达你意见的尊重方式。我受的教育不是进行智力辩论的方式。你呢？音乐家：嗯，不……我只是觉得你错了。我：这不是我的观点——这是两位不同社会科学家的独立发现。什么证据能改变你的想法？音乐家：我不认为音乐家的伟大程度可以量化，但我想看看这项研究。

When I sent him the study, he responded with an apology. I don’t know if I succeeded in changing his mind, but I had done a better job of opening it.

当我把研究报告发给他时，他回复道了歉。我不知道我是否成功改变了他的想法，但我打开它的方式应该更好一些。

When someone becomes hostile, if you respond by viewing the argument as a war, you can either attack or retreat. If instead you treat it as a dance, you have another option—you can sidestep. Having a conversation about the conversation shifts attention away from the substance of the disagreement and toward the process for having a dialogue. The more anger and hostility the other person expresses, the more curiosity and interest you show. When someone is losing control, your tranquility is a sign of strength. It takes the wind out of their emotional sails. It’s pretty rare for someone to respond by screaming “SCREAMING IS MY PREFERRED MODE OF COMMUNICATION!”

当有人变得充满敌意时，如果你将争论视为一场战争，你要么进攻，要么撤退。相反，如果你把它视为一场舞蹈，你还有另一个选择——回避。就对话进行讨论，可以将注意力从分歧的实质转移到对话的过程上。对方表现出的愤怒和敌意越多，你就越能表现出好奇和兴趣。当有人失控时，你的平静是一种力量的象征。它能让他们情绪失控。很少有人会用尖叫来回应：“我更喜欢尖叫的沟通方式！”

This is a fifth move that expert negotiators made more often than average negotiators. They were more likely to comment on their feelings about the process and test their understanding of the other side’s feelings: I’m disappointed in the way this discussion has unfolded—are you frustrated with it? I was hoping you’d see this proposal as fair—do I understand correctly that you don’t see any merit in this approach at all? Honestly, I’m a little confused by your reaction to my data—if you don’t value the kind of work I do, why did you hire me?

这是专家级谈判者比普通谈判者更常使用的第五个步骤。他们更有可能评论自己对谈判过程的感受，并测试自己对对方感受的理解：我对这次谈判的进展感到失望——你对此感到沮丧吗？我希望你认为这个提议是公平的——我理解得对吗？你认为这种方法毫无价值。说实话，你对我的数据的反应让我有点困惑——如果你不重视我的工作，那你为什么要雇佣我？

In a heated argument, you can always stop and ask, “What evidence would change your mind?” If the answer is “nothing,” then there’s no point in continuing the debate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.

在激烈的争论中，你随时可以停下来问：“什么证据能改变你的想法？” 如果答案是“什么也没有”，那么继续辩论就没有意义了。你可以把马牵到水边，但你无法让它思考。

THE STRENGTH OF WEAK OPINIONS

弱势意见的力量

When we hit a brick wall in a debate, we don’t have to stop talking altogether. “Let’s agree to disagree” shouldn’t end a discussion. It should start a new conversation, with a focus on understanding and learning rather than arguing and persuading. That’s what we’d do in scientist mode: take the long view and ask how we could have handled the debate more effectively. Doing so might land us in a better position to make the same case to a different person—or to make a different case to the same person on a different day.

当我们在辩论中碰壁时，不必完全停止讨论。“让我们求同存异”不应该结束讨论。它应该开启一段新的对话，重点是理解和学习，而不是争论和说服。这正是我们以科学家的视角所做的：放眼长远，思考如何才能更有效地处理这场辩论。这样做或许能让我们更好地向不同的人陈述同样的论点，或者在不同的一天向同一个人陈述不同的论点。

When I asked one of the Wall Street executives for advice on how to approach debates differently in the future, he suggested expressing less conviction. I could easily have countered that I was uncertain about which of my twenty-six recommendations might be relevant. I could also have conceded that although money didn’t usually solve the problem, I’d never seen anyone test the effect of million-dollar retention bonuses. That would be a fun experiment to run, don’t you think?

当我向一位华尔街高管请教未来如何以不同的方式处理辩论时，他建议我不要那么坚定。我本可以轻易反驳说，我不确定我的26条建议中哪些可能适用。我也可以承认，虽然金钱通常不能解决问题，但我从未见过有人测试过百万美元留任奖金的效果。那会是一个有趣的实验，你不觉得吗？

A few years ago, I argued in my book Originals that if we want to fight groupthink, it helps to have “strong opinions, weakly held.” Since then I’ve changed my mind—I now believe that’s a mistake. If we hold an opinion weakly, expressing it strongly can backfire. Communicating it with some uncertainty signals confident humility, invites curiosity, and leads to a more nuanced discussion. Research shows that in courtrooms, expert witnesses and deliberating jurors are more credible and more persuasive when they express moderate confidence, rather than high or low confidence. * And these principles aren’t limited to debates—they apply in a wide range of situations where we’re advocating for our beliefs or even for ourselves.

几年前，我在我的书《原创》（Originals）中指出，如果我们想要对抗群体思维，“坚定的观点，但持有较弱的观点”是有帮助的。后来我改变了想法——我认为这是一个错误。如果我们持有较弱的观点，那么强烈地表达它可能会适得其反。带着些许不确定性来表达，能够展现自信的谦逊，激发好奇心，并引导更细致的讨论。研究表明，在法庭上，专家证人和审慎的陪审员在表达适度的信心时，比表达高度或低度的信心时更可信，也更有说服力。*这些原则不仅限于辩论——它们适用于我们倡导自身信念甚至自我主张的各种场合。

In 2014, a young woman named Michele Hansen came across a job opening for a product manager at an investment company. She was excited about the position but she wasn’t qualified for it: she had no background in finance and lacked the required number of years of experience. If you were in her shoes and you decided to go for it, what would you say in your cover letter?

2014年，一位名叫米歇尔·汉森的年轻女士偶然发现了一家投资公司的产品经理职位空缺。她对这个职位很感兴趣，但又不符合要求：她没有金融背景，经验也不够。如果你处在她的位置，决定申请这个职位，你会在求职信里写些什么呢？

The natural starting point would be to emphasize your strengths and downplay your weaknesses. As Michael Scott deadpanned on The Office , “ I work too hard, I care too much, and sometimes I can be too invested in my job.” But Michele Hansen did the opposite, taking a page out of the George Costanza playbook on Seinfeld : “ My name is George. I’m unemployed and I live with my parents.” Rather than trying to hide her shortcomings, Michele opened with them. “I’m probably not the candidate you’ve been envisioning,” her cover letter began. “I don’t have a decade of experience as a Product Manager nor am I a Certified Financial Planner.” After establishing the drawbacks of her case, she emphasized a few reasons to hire her anyway:

自然的起点应该是强调你的优势，淡化你的劣势。正如迈克尔·斯科特在《办公室》中面无表情地说的那样：“我工作太努力，我太在乎，有时我会对工作投入太多。” 但米歇尔·汉森却反其道而行之，她借鉴了《宋飞传》中乔治·康斯坦扎的剧本：“我叫乔治。我失业了，和父母住在一起。” 米歇尔没有试图掩盖自己的缺点，而是直接开门见山。“我可能不是你想象中的那种人，”她的求职信开头写道。“我没有十年的产品经理经验，也不是注册理财规划师。” 在陈述了自己的不足之处后，她强调了几个无论如何都应该聘用她的理由：

But what I do have are skills that can’t be taught. I take ownership of projects far beyond my pay grade and what is in my defined scope of responsibilities. I don’t wait for people to tell me what to do and go seek for myself what needs to be done. I invest myself deeply in my projects and it shows in everything I do, from my projects at work to my projects that I undertake on my own time at night. I’m entrepreneurial, I get things done, and I know I would make an excellent right hand for the co-founder leading this project. I love breaking new ground and starting with a blank slate. (And any of my previous bosses would be able to attest to these traits.)

但我拥有的技能是无法传授的。我敢于承担远超我薪资等级和职责范围的项目。我不会等着别人告诉我该做什么，而是会主动去探索需要做什么。我全身心投入到我的项目中，这体现在我所做的每一件事上，从工作中的项目到晚上利用业余时间完成的项目。我富有创业精神，能够完成任务，而且我知道我会成为领导这个项目的联合创始人的绝佳得力助手。我喜欢开拓创新，从零开始。（我以前的老板们都能证明我具备这些特质。）

A week later a recruiter contacted her for a phone screen, and then she had another phone screen with the team. On the calls, she asked about experiments they’d run recently that had surprised them. The question itself surprised the team—they ended up talking about times when they were sure they were right but were later proven wrong. Michele got the job, thrived, and was promoted to lead product development. This success isn’t unique to her: there’s evidence that people are more interested in hiring candidates who acknowledge legitimate weaknesses as opposed to bragging or humblebragging.

一周后，一位招聘人员联系她进行电话面试，之后她又与团队进行了一次电话面试。电话中，她询问了他们最近进行的哪些实验让他们感到意外。这个问题本身也让团队感到意外——他们最终谈到了那些他们确信自己正确但后来被证明是错误的经历。Michele 最终得到了这份工作，并且发展得很好，最终晋升为产品开发主管。这样的成功并非她独有：有证据表明，人们更愿意聘用那些承认自身合理弱点的候选人，而不是那些自吹自擂或谦虚自夸的候选人。

Even after recognizing that she was fighting an uphill battle, Michele didn’t go on defense or offense. She didn’t preach her qualifications or prosecute the problems with the job description. By agreeing with the argument against her in her cover letter, she preempted knee-jerk rejection, demonstrating that she was self-aware enough to discern her shortcomings and secure enough to admit them.

即使意识到自己面临着一场艰苦的战斗，米歇尔也没有采取任何防御或进攻的姿态。她没有宣扬自己的资历，也没有纠缠职位描述中的问题。她认同求职信中针对她的论点，从而避免了下意识的拒绝，表明她有足够的自知之明来辨别自己的缺点，并且有足够的安全感来承认它们。

An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our case anyway. We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them. By emphasizing a small number of core strengths, Michele avoided argument dilution, focusing attention on her strongest points. And by showing curiosity about times the team had been wrong, she may have motivated them to rethink their criteria. They realized that they weren’t looking for a set of skills and credentials—they were looking to hire a human being with the motivation and ability to learn. Michele knew what she didn’t know and had the confidence to admit it, which sent a clear signal that she could learn what she needed to know.

无论如何，见多识广的听众都会发现我们案例中的漏洞。我们或许应该因为谦逊地发现这些漏洞、有远见地发现这些漏洞以及正直地承认这些漏洞而获得赞誉。通过强调少数几个核心优势，米歇尔避免了论点被稀释，将注意力集中在她最强的论点上。而通过对团队犯错时刻表现出的好奇，她或许促使他们重新思考他们的标准。他们意识到，他们寻求的并非技能和资历的集合——他们希望聘请一位拥有学习动力和能力的人。米歇尔知道自己不知道什么，并且有信心承认这一点，这清楚地表明她能够学习自己需要的知识。

By asking questions rather than thinking for the audience, we invite them to join us as a partner and think for themselves. If we approach an argument as a war, there will be winners and losers. If we see it more as a dance, we can begin to choreograph a way forward. By considering the strongest version of an opponent’s perspective and limiting our responses to our few best steps, we have a better chance of finding a rhythm.

通过提问而不是替观众思考，我们邀请他们作为伙伴加入我们，独立思考。如果我们把争论当成一场战争，就会有赢家和输家。如果我们把它看作一曲舞蹈，我们就能开始编排前进的道路。通过考虑对手最强硬的观点，并将我们的回应限制在我们最擅长的几个步骤上，我们更有可能找到节奏。

CHAPTER 6 第六章

Bad Blood on the Diamond

《钻石上的坏血》

Diminishing Prejudice by Destabilizing Stereotypes

通过打破刻板印象来减少偏见

I hated the Yankees with all my heart, even to the point of having to confess in my first holy confession that I wished harm to others—namely that I wished various New York Yankees would break arms, legs and ankles. . . .

—Doris Kearns Goodwin

我全心全意地憎恨洋基队，甚至在我的第一次神圣忏悔中承认我希望伤害他人——也就是说，我希望纽约洋基队队员打断他们的胳膊、腿和脚踝。……——多丽丝·卡恩斯·古德温

One afternoon in Maryland in 1983, Daryl Davis arrived at a lounge to play the piano at a country music gig. It wasn’t his first time being the only Black man in the room. Before the night was out, it would be his first time having a conversation with a white supremacist.

1983年的一个下午，马里兰州的一家酒吧正在举办乡村音乐演出，达里尔·戴维斯（Daryl Davis）来到酒吧弹钢琴。这并非他第一次成为房间里唯一的黑人。在夜幕降临之前，这将是他第一次与白人至上主义者交谈。

After the show, an older white man in the audience walked up to Daryl and told him that he was astonished to see a Black musician play like Jerry Lee Lewis. Daryl replied that he and Lewis were, in fact, friends, and that Lewis himself had acknowledged that his style was influenced by Black musicians. Although the man was skeptical, he invited Daryl to sit down for a drink.

演出结束后，一位年长的白人观众走到达里尔面前，告诉他，看到杰瑞·李·刘易斯这样的黑人音乐家演奏，他感到很惊讶。达里尔回答说，他和刘易斯实际上是朋友，而且刘易斯本人也承认自己的风格受到了黑人音乐家的影响。尽管这位白人观众心存疑虑，但他还是邀请达里尔坐下来喝一杯。

Soon the man was admitting that he’d never had a drink with a Black person before. Eventually he explained to Daryl why. He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist hate group that had been murdering African Americans for over a century and had lynched a man just two years earlier.

很快，那人承认他从未和黑人喝过酒。最后，他向达里尔解释了原因。他是三K党的成员，这是一个白人至上主义仇恨团体，一个多世纪以来一直在谋杀非裔美国人，两年前还私刑处死了一名男子。

If you found yourself sitting down with someone who hated you and all people who shared your skin color, your instinctive options might be fight, flight, or freeze—and rightfully so. Daryl had a different reaction: he burst out laughing. When the man pulled out his KKK membership card to show he wasn’t joking, Daryl returned to a question that had been on his mind since he was ten years old. In the late 1960s, he was marching in a Cub Scout parade when white spectators started throwing cans, rocks, and bottles at him. It was the first time he remembers facing overt racism, and although he could justifiably have gotten angry, he was bewildered: “How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?”

如果你发现自己坐在一个讨厌你和所有与你肤色相同的人的人旁边，你的本能反应可能是战斗、逃跑或僵住——这理所当然。达里尔的反应却截然不同：他突然大笑起来。当那人掏出他的三K党会员卡，表明他不是在开玩笑时，达里尔又想起了一个他十岁起就一直在思考的问题。20世纪60年代末，他参加幼童军游行时，白人观众开始向他扔罐子、石头和瓶子。这是他记忆中第一次面对公开的种族歧视，虽然他理所当然地会感到愤怒，但他却感到困惑：“你根本不认识我，怎么能恨我呢？”

At the end of the conversation, the Klansman handed Daryl his phone number and asked if he would call him whenever he was playing locally. Daryl followed up, and the next month the man showed up with a bunch of his friends to see Daryl perform.

通话结束时，这名三K党成员给了达里尔自己的电话号码，问他以后在当地演出时是否愿意给他打电话。达里尔照做了，结果第二个月，这名男子就带着一群朋友来看达里尔的演出了。

Over time a friendship grew, and the man ended up leaving the KKK. That was a turning point in Daryl’s life, too. It wasn’t long before Daryl was sitting down with Imperial Wizards and Grand Dragons—the Klan’s highest officers—to ask his question. Since then, Daryl has convinced many white supremacists to leave the KKK and abandon their hatred.

随着时间的推移，两人的友谊逐渐加深，最终他离开了三K党。这也是达里尔人生的转折点。不久之后，达里尔就与三K党的最高长官——帝国巫师和大龙——坐下来，提出了他的问题。从那时起，达里尔说服了许多白人至上主义者离开三K党，放弃他们的仇恨。

I wanted to understand how that kind of change happens—how to break overconfidence cycles that are steeped in stereotypes and prejudice about entire groups of people. Strangely enough, my journey started at a baseball game.

我想了解这种改变是如何发生的——如何打破根植于对整个群体刻板印象和偏见的过度自信循环。说来也怪，我的旅程始于一场棒球比赛。

HATE ME OUT AT THE BALLGAME

在球赛上恨我

“Yankees suck! Yankees suck!” It was a summer night at Fenway Park, my first and only time at a Boston Red Sox baseball game. In the seventh inning, without warning, 37,000 people erupted into a chant. The entire stadium was dissing the New York Yankees in perfect harmony.

“洋基队烂透了！洋基队烂透了！”那是芬威球场的一个夏夜，我第一次也是唯一一次观看波士顿红袜队的棒球比赛。第七局，毫无征兆地，3.7万名观众爆发出齐声呐喊。整个体育场都在齐声地贬低纽约洋基队。

I knew the two teams had a century-long rivalry, widely viewed as the most heated in all of American professional sports. I took it for granted that the Boston fans would root against the Yankees. I just didn’t expect it to happen that day, because the Yankees weren’t even there.

我知道这两支球队的竞争已经持续了一个世纪，被广泛认为是美国职业体育中最激烈的竞争。我理所当然地认为波士顿球迷会支持洋基队。只是我没想到那天会发生这种事，因为洋基队当时根本就没到场。

The Red Sox were playing against the Oakland A’s. The Boston fans were booing a team that was hundreds of miles away. It was as if Burger King fans were going head-to-head against Wendy’s in a taste test and started chanting “McDonald’s sucks!”

红袜队正在和奥克兰运动家队比赛。波士顿球迷们正对着远在数百英里之外的球队发出嘘声。这就像汉堡王的粉丝们在和温迪汉堡的味觉测试中正面交锋，然后开始高喊“麦当劳糟透了！”

I started to wonder if Red Sox fans hate the Yankees more than they love their own team. Boston parents have been known to teach their kids to flip the bird at the Yankees and detest anything in pinstripes, and yankees suck is apparently among the most popular T-shirts in Boston history. When asked how much money it would take to get them to taunt their own team, Red Sox fans requested an average of $503. To root for the Yankees, they wanted even more: $560. The feelings run so deep that neuroscientists can watch them light up people’s minds: when Red Sox fans see the Yankees fail, they show immediate activation in brain regions linked to reward and pleasure. Those feelings extend well beyond Boston: in a 2019 analysis of tweets, the Yankees were the most hated baseball team in twenty-eight of the fifty U.S. states, which may explain the popularity of this T-shirt:

我开始怀疑红袜球迷对洋基队的憎恨是否超过了他们对自家球队的热爱。众所周知，波士顿的家长们会教孩子对洋基队竖中指，并且厌恶任何带细条纹的东西，而“洋基队烂透了”显然是波士顿历史上最受欢迎的T恤之一。当被问及要花多少钱才能让他们嘲讽自己的球队时，红袜球迷平均要价503美元。而为了支持洋基队，他们的要价甚至更高：560美元。这种情感如此深刻，以至于神经科学家能够观察到它如何点亮人们的大脑：当红袜球迷看到洋基队失败时，他们大脑中与奖励和愉悦相关的区域会立即被激活。这种情感远不止波士顿：在2019年的一项推文分析中，洋基队是美国50个州中28个州最讨厌的棒球队，这或许可以解释这件T恤的流行：

I recently called a friend who’s a die-hard Red Sox fan with a simple question: what would it take to get him to root for the Yankees? Without pausing, he said, “If they were playing Al Qaeda . . . maybe.”

最近我打电话给一位铁杆红袜球迷朋友，问了一个简单的问题：怎样才能让他支持洋基队？他毫不犹豫地说：“如果他们玩的是基地组织……也许吧。”

It’s one thing to love your team. It’s another to hate your rivals so much that you’d consider rooting for terrorists to crush them. If you despise a particular sports team—and its fans—you’re harboring some strong opinions about a group of people. Those beliefs are stereotypes, and they often spill over into prejudice. The stronger your attitudes become, the less likely you are to rethink them.

热爱你的球队是一回事。恨你的对手恨到甚至会支持恐怖分子来摧毁他们又是另一回事。如果你鄙视某个特定的运动队及其球迷，那么你对某个群体抱有强烈的偏见。这些信念是刻板印象，往往会演变成偏见。你的态度越强烈，你就越不可能重新思考它们。

Rivalries aren’t unique to sports. A rivalry exists whenever we reserve special animosity for a group we see as competing with us for resources or threatening our identities. In business, the rivalry between footwear companies Puma and Adidas was so intense that for generations, families self-segregated based on their allegiance to the brands—they went to different bakeries, pubs, and shops, and even refused to date people who worked for the rival firm. In politics, you probably know some Democrats who view Republicans as being greedy, ignorant, heartless cretins, and some Republicans who regard Democrats as lazy, dishonest, hypersensitive snowflakes. As stereotypes stick and prejudice deepens, we don’t just identify with our own group; we disidentify with our adversaries, coming to define who we are by what we’re not. We don’t just preach the virtues of our side; we find self-worth in prosecuting the vices of our rivals.

竞争并非体育界独有。每当我们对某个群体抱有特殊的敌意，认为他们与我们争夺资源或威胁我们的身份认同时，竞争就存在了。在商业领域，彪马和阿迪达斯两大鞋类公司之间的竞争异常激烈，以至于几代人以来，许多家庭都根据对品牌的忠诚度进行自我隔离——他们会去不同的面包店、酒吧和商店，甚至拒绝与竞争对手的员工约会。在政治领域，你可能认识一些民主党人，他们认为共和党人贪婪、无知、冷酷无情；也有一些共和党人认为民主党人懒惰、不诚实、过度敏感。随着刻板印象的根深蒂固和偏见的加深，我们不仅认同自己的群体，还会与对手产生隔阂，最终用我们所不具备的东西来定义自己。我们不仅宣扬自己阵营的美德，还会在谴责对手的恶行中找到自我价值。

When people hold prejudice toward a rival group, they’re often willing to do whatever it takes to elevate their own group and undermine their rivals—even if it means doing harm or doing wrong. We see people cross those lines regularly in sports rivalries. * Aggression extends well beyond the playing field: from Barcelona to Brazil, fistfights frequently break out between soccer fans. Cheating scandals are rampant, too, and they aren’t limited to athletes or coaches. When students at The Ohio State University were paid to participate in an experiment, they learned that if they were willing to lie to a student from a different school, their own pay would double and the other student’s compensation would be cut in half. Their odds of lying quadrupled if the student attended the University of Michigan—their biggest rival—rather than Berkeley or Virginia.

当人们对敌对群体怀有偏见时，他们往往愿意不惜一切代价来抬高本群体、削弱对手——即使这意味着伤害或做错事。我们经常看到人们在体育竞争中越界。*攻击性行为的延伸远远超出了赛场：从巴塞罗那到巴西，足球迷之间经常爆发斗殴。作弊丑闻也很猖獗，而且不仅限于运动员或教练。俄亥俄州立大学的学生在参与一项有偿实验时发现，如果他们愿意对来自不同学校的学生撒谎，他们自己的工资就会翻倍，而对方学生的工资则会减半。如果对方学生就读于密歇根大学（他们最大的竞争对手）而不是伯克利大学或弗吉尼亚大学，他们撒谎的几率就会翻两番。

Why do people form stereotypes about rival groups in the first place, and what does it take to get them to rethink them?

人们为什么会对竞争群体形成刻板印象？怎样才能让他们重新思考这些刻板印象？

FITTING IN AND STANDING OUT

融入并脱颖而出

For decades psychologists have found that people can feel animosity toward other groups even when the boundaries between them are trivial. Take a seemingly innocuous question: is a hot dog a sandwich? When students answered this question, most felt strongly enough that they were willing to sacrifice a dollar to those who agreed with them to make sure those who disagreed got less.

几十年来，心理学家发现，即使彼此之间的界限很模糊，人们也会对其他群体产生敌意。举个看似无伤大雅的问题：热狗是三明治吗？当学生们回答这个问题时，大多数人都表现出强烈的敌意，他们愿意为那些认同他们观点的人牺牲一美元，以确保那些持不同意见的人得到更少的钱。

In every human society, people are motivated to seek belonging and status. Identifying with a group checks both boxes at the same time: we become part of a tribe, and we take pride when our tribe wins. In classic studies on college campuses, psychologists found that after their team won a football game, students were more likely to walk around wearing school swag. From Arizona State to Notre Dame to USC, students basked in the reflected glory of Saturday victories, donning team shirts and hats and jackets on Sunday. If their team lost, they shunned school apparel, and distanced themselves by saying “they lost” instead of “we lost.” Some economists and finance experts have even found that the stock market rises if a country’s soccer team wins World Cup matches and falls if they lose. *

在每个人类社会中，人们都有寻求归属感和地位的动机。认同一个群体可以同时满足这两个条件：我们成为一个部落的一部分，并且当我们的部落获胜时，我们会感到自豪。在针对大学校园的经典研究中，心理学家发现，在他们所在的球队赢得一场足球比赛后，学生们更有可能穿着学校的标志四处走动。从亚利桑那州立大学到圣母大学再到南加州大学，学生们沉浸在周六胜利的荣耀之中，周日则穿上球队的球衣、帽子和夹克。如果他们的球队输了，他们就会脱下校服，并通过说“他们输了”而不是“我们输了”来保持距离。一些经济学家和金融专家甚至发现，如果一个国家的足球队赢得世界杯比赛，股市就会上涨，如果输了，股市就会下跌。*

Rivalries are most likely to develop between teams that are geographically close, compete regularly, and are evenly matched. The Yankees and Red Sox fit this pattern: they’re both on the East Coast, they play each other eighteen or nineteen times a season, they both have histories of success, and as of 2019, they had competed over 2,200 times—with each team winning over 1,000 times. The two teams also have more fans than any other franchises in baseball.

地理位置相近、经常比赛且实力相当的球队之间最容易产生竞争。洋基队和红袜队就符合这种模式：他们都位于东海岸，每个赛季交手十八九次，都有着辉煌的历史，截至2019年，他们已经交手超过2200次，每队都胜出1000多次。这两支球队的球迷数量也比棒球界任何其他球队都多。

I decided to test what it would take to get fans to rethink their beliefs about their bitter rivals. Working with a doctoral student, Tim Kundro, I ran a series of experiments with passionate Yankees and Red Sox supporters. To get a sense of their stereotypes, we asked over a thousand Red Sox and Yankees fans to list three negative things about their rivals. They mostly used the same words to describe one another, complaining about their respective accents, their beards, and their tendency to “smell like old corn chips.”

我决定测试一下，如何才能让球迷们重新思考他们对劲敌的看法。我与博士生蒂姆·昆德罗合作，对洋基队和红袜队的狂热支持者进行了一系列实验。为了了解他们的刻板印象，我们邀请了一千多名红袜队和洋基队的球迷列出三件关于他们对手的负面评价。他们大多用同样的词语来形容对方，抱怨对方的口音、胡须，以及身上“闻起来像陈年玉米片”的毛病。

WHY RED SOX FANS HATE YANKEES FANS

为什么红袜队球迷讨厌洋基队球迷

WHY YANKEES FANS HATE RED SOX FANS

为什么洋基队球迷讨厌红袜队球迷

Once we’ve formed those kinds of stereotypes, for both mental and social reasons it’s hard to undo them. Psychologist George Kelly observed that our beliefs are like pairs of reality goggles. We use them to make sense of the world and navigate our surroundings. A threat to our opinions cracks our goggles, leaving our vision blurred. It’s only natural to put up our guard in response—and Kelly noticed that we become especially hostile when trying to defend opinions that we know, deep down, are false. Rather than trying on a different pair of goggles, we become mental contortionists, twisting and turning until we find an angle of vision that keeps our current views intact.

一旦形成了这些刻板印象，无论出于心理还是社会原因，都很难消除。心理学家乔治·凯利观察到，我们的信念就像一副现实护目镜。我们用它们来理解世界，并探索周围的环境。对我们观点的威胁会让我们护目镜破裂，使我们的视野变得模糊。我们自然会对此保持警惕——凯利注意到，当我们试图捍卫那些我们内心深处知道是错误的观点时，会变得尤其充满敌意。我们不会尝试戴上另一副护目镜，而是像精神扭曲者一样，不断扭曲和旋转，直到找到一个能够保持我们当前观点的视角。

Socially, there’s another reason stereotypes are so sticky. We tend to interact with people who share them, which makes them even more extreme. This phenomenon is called group polarization, and it’s been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments. Juries with authoritarian beliefs recommend harsher punishments after deliberating together. Corporate boards are more likely to support paying outlandish premiums for companies after group discussions. Citizens who start out with a clear belief on affirmative action and gay marriage develop more extreme views on these issues after talking with a few others who share their stance. Their preaching and prosecuting move in the direction of their politics. Polarization is reinforced by conformity: peripheral members fit in and gain status by following the lead of the most prototypical member of the group, who often holds the most intense views.

从社会角度来看，刻板印象如此根深蒂固还有另一个原因。我们倾向于与持有相同观念的人互动，这使得这些观念更加极端。这种现象被称为群体极化，数百项实验已证实了这一点。持有权威主义信仰的陪审团在共同商议后会建议更严厉的惩罚。公司董事会在小组讨论后更有可能支持为公司支付高昂的保费。最初对平权行动和同性婚姻抱有明确信念的公民，在与几个持有相同立场的人交谈后，会在这些问题上形成更极端的观点。他们的说教和起诉都朝着他们的政治方向发展。从众会强化极化：边缘成员通过追随群体中最典型的成员（通常持有最强烈的观点）来融入并获得地位。

Grow up in a family of Red Sox fans and you’re bound to hear some unpleasant things about Yankees fans. Start making regular trips to a ballpark packed with people who share your loathing, and it’s only a matter of time before your contempt intensifies and calcifies. Once that happens, you’re motivated to see the best in your team and the worst in your opponent. Evidence shows that when teams try to downplay a rivalry by reminding fans that it’s just a game, it backfires. Fans feel their identity is being devalued and actually become more aggressive. My first idea for disrupting this pattern came from outer space.

如果你在一个红袜队球迷家庭长大，你肯定会听到一些关于洋基队球迷的不愉快之事。如果你开始定期前往挤满和你一样讨厌的人的球场，你的蔑视加剧和固化只是时间问题。一旦发生这种情况，你就会有动力去看到自己球队的优点和对手的缺点。有证据表明，当球队试图通过提醒球迷这只是一场比赛来淡化竞争时，结果会适得其反。球迷们会觉得自己的身份被贬低，实际上会变得更加激进。我最初打破这种模式的想法来自外太空。

HYPOTHESIS 1: NOT IN A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN

假设 1：并非独一无二

If you ever leave the planet Earth, you’ll probably end up rethinking some of your feelings about other human beings. A team of psychologists has studied the effects of outer space on inner space, assessing the changes in more than a hundred astronauts and cosmonauts through interviews, surveys, and analyses of autobiographies. Upon returning from space, astronauts are less focused on individual achievements and personal happiness, and more concerned about the collective good. “You develop an instant global consciousness . . . an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it,” Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell reflected. “ From out there on the moon, international politics looks so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a b*tch.’”

如果你离开地球，你最终可能会重新思考自己对其他人的一些感受。一个心理学家团队研究了外太空对内心世界的影响，通过访谈、调查和自传分析，评估了一百多名宇航员和航天员的内心变化。从太空返回后，宇航员们不再关注个人成就和个人幸福，而是更加关心集体利益。“你会瞬间产生一种全球意识……对世界现状产生强烈的不满，并产生一种想要采取行动的冲动，”阿波罗14号宇航员埃德加·米切尔反思道。“从月球上看，国际政治看起来如此琐碎。你会恨不得抓住一个政客的脖子，把他拖到25万英里外，然后说：‘看看这个，你这个混蛋。’”

This reaction is known as the overview effect. The astronaut who described it most vividly to me is space shuttle commander Jeff Ashby. He recalled that the first time he looked back at the Earth from outer space, it changed him forever:

这种反应被称为总观效应。向我描述得最生动的宇航员是航天飞机指挥官杰夫·阿什比。他回忆起第一次从外太空回望地球的情景，那永远地改变了他：

On Earth, astronauts look to the stars—most of us are star fanatics—but in space, the stars look the same as they do on Earth. What is so different is the planet—the perspective that it gives you. My first glimpse of the Earth from space was about fifteen minutes into my first flight, when I looked up from my checklist and suddenly we were over the lit part of the Earth with our windows facing down. Below me was the continent of Africa, and it was moving by much as a city would move by from an airline seat. Circling the entire planet in ninety minutes, you see that thin blue arc of the atmosphere. Seeing how fragile the little layer is in which all of humankind exists, you can easily from space see the connection between someone on one side of the planet to someone on the other—and there are no borders evident. So it appears as just this one common layer that we all exist in.

在地球上，宇航员仰望星空——我们大多数人都是星空狂热爱好者——但在太空中，星星看起来和地球上的一样。真正不同的是这颗星球——它给你的视角。我第一次从太空瞥见地球是在我第一次飞行大约十五分钟后，当时我从清单上抬起头，突然间我们飞到了地球被照亮的那一部分，窗户朝下。在我下方是非洲大陆，它的移动速度就像从飞机座位上看到一座城市移动的速度一样。绕地球九十分钟，你会看到大气层那条细长的蓝色弧线。看到这层薄薄的大气层是多么脆弱，全人类都生活在其中，从太空中你很容易就能看到地球一边的人与另一边的人之间的联系——而且没有明显的边界。所以它看起来就像我们都存在于其中的这一个共同的大气层。

When you get to see an overview of the Earth from outer space, you realize you share a common identity with all human beings. I wanted to create a version of the overview effect for baseball fans.

当你从外太空俯瞰地球时，你会意识到你和所有人类都拥有共同的身份。我想为棒球迷创造一种类似的“概览效应”。

There’s some evidence that common identity can build bridges between rivals. In one experiment, psychologists randomly assigned Manchester United soccer fans a short writing task. They then staged an emergency in which a passing runner slipped and fell, screaming in pain as he held his ankle. He was wearing the T-shirt of their biggest rival, and the question was whether they would stop to help him. If the soccer fans had just written about why they loved their team, only 30 percent helped. If they had written about what they had in common with other soccer fans, 70 percent helped.

有证据表明，共同的身份认同能够在对手之间架起桥梁。在一项实验中，心理学家随机给曼联球迷布置了一项简短的写作任务。然后，他们设计了一个紧急情况：一名路过的跑步者滑倒了，他捂着脚踝痛苦地尖叫。他穿着他们最大对手的T恤，问题是他们是否会停下来帮助他。如果球迷们只是写下他们为什么热爱自己的球队，只有30%的人会伸出援手。如果他们写下他们与其他球迷的共同点，70%的人会伸出援手。

When Tim and I tried to get Red Sox and Yankees fans to reflect on their common identity as baseball fans, it didn’t work. They didn’t end up with more positive views of one another or a greater willingness to help one another outside emergency situations. Shared identity doesn’t stick in every circumstance. If a rival fan has just had an accident, thinking about a common identity might motivate us to help. If he’s not in danger or dire need, though, it’s too easy to dismiss him as just another jerk—or not our responsibility. “We both love baseball,” one Red Sox supporter commented. “The Yankees fans just like the wrong team.” Another stated that their shared love of baseball had no effect on his opinions: “The Yankees suck, and their fans are annoying.”

我和蒂姆试图让红袜队和洋基队的球迷反思他们作为棒球迷的共同身份，但没能奏效。他们最终并没有对彼此产生更积极的看法，也没有更愿意在紧急情况下互相帮助。共同的身份认同并非在所有情况下都适用。如果一个对手球迷刚刚遭遇意外，思考共同的身份认同或许会激励我们伸出援手。但如果他没有处于危险之中或急需帮助，我们很容易就把他当作又一个混蛋——或者不该由我们负责。“我们都热爱棒球，”一位红袜队球迷评论道。“洋基队的球迷只是选错了球队。”另一位球迷表示，他们对棒球的共同热爱并没有影响他的看法：“洋基队很烂，他们的球迷也很烦人。”

HYPOTHESIS 2: FEELING FOR OUR FOES

假设二：同情我们的敌人

I next turned to the psychology of peace. Years ago the pioneering psychologist and Holocaust survivor Herb Kelman set out to challenge some of the stereotypes behind the Israel-Palestine conflict by teaching the two sides to understand and empathize with one another. He designed interactive problem-solving workshops in which influential Israeli and Palestinian leaders talked off the record about paths to peace. For years, they came together to share their own experiences and perspectives, address one another’s needs and fears, and explore novel solutions to the conflict. Over time, the workshops didn’t just shatter stereotypes—some of the participants ended up forming lifelong friendships.

接下来，我转向了和平心理学。多年前，先驱心理学家、大屠杀幸存者赫伯·凯尔曼（Herb Kelman）着手挑战巴以冲突背后的一些刻板印象，他教导双方相互理解和同情。他设计了互动式问题解决工作坊，让有影响力的以色列和巴勒斯坦领导人私下探讨和平之路。多年来，他们齐聚一堂，分享各自的经验和观点，回应彼此的需求和恐惧，并探索解决冲突的新方法。随着时间的推移，这些工作坊不仅打破了刻板印象，一些参与者最终还结下了终生的友谊。

Humanizing the other side should be much easier in sports, because the stakes are lower and the playing field is more level. I started with another of the biggest rivalries in sports: UNC-Duke. I asked Shane Battier, who led Duke to an NCAA basketball championship in 2001, what it would take for him to root for UNC. His immediate reply: “If they were playing the Taliban.” I had no idea so many people fantasized about crushing terrorists in their favorite sport. I wondered whether humanizing a Duke student would change UNC students’ stereotypes of the group.

在体育运动中，将对手人性化应该更容易，因为风险更低，竞争环境也更公平。我从体育界另一个最大的竞争对手——北卡罗来纳大学和杜克大学开始谈起。我问过肖恩·巴蒂尔——他带领杜克大学在2001年夺得NCAA篮球冠军——他需要什么才能支持北卡罗来纳大学。他立即回答：“如果他们在和塔利班比赛。” 我不知道有这么多人幻想着在他们最喜欢的运动中消灭恐怖分子。我想知道，将杜克大学的学生人性化是否会改变北卡罗来纳大学学生对这个群体的刻板印象。

In an experiment with my colleagues Alison Fragale and Karren Knowlton, we asked UNC students to help improve the job application of a peer. If we mentioned that he went to Duke rather than UNC, as long as he was facing significant financial need, participants spent extra time helping him. Once they felt empathy for his plight, they saw him as a unique individual deserving of assistance and liked him more. Yet when we measured their views of Duke students in general, the UNC students were just as likely to see them as their rivals, to say that it felt like a personal compliment if they heard someone criticize Duke, and to take it as a personal insult if they heard Duke praised. We had succeeded in changing their attitudes toward the student, but failed in changing their stereotypes of the group.

在与我的同事艾莉森·弗拉盖尔（Alison Fragale）和卡伦·诺尔顿（Karren Knowlton）合作的一项实验中，我们邀请北卡罗来纳大学的学生帮助一位同学改进求职申请。如果我们提到这位同学上的是杜克大学而不是北卡罗来纳大学，只要他面临严重的经济困难，参与者就会额外花时间帮助他。一旦他们对这位同学的困境感同身受，他们就会把他视为一个值得帮助的独特个体，并且更加喜欢他。然而，当我们衡量他们对杜克大学学生的总体看法时，北卡罗来纳大学的学生同样可能将杜克大学的学生视为竞争对手，如果听到有人批评杜克大学，他们会觉得这是一种人身赞美；如果听到杜克大学受到赞扬，他们会觉得这是一种人身侮辱。我们成功地改变了他们对这位学生的态度，但却未能改变他们对这个群体的刻板印象。

Something similar happened when Tim and I tried to humanize a Yankees fan. We had Red Sox fans read a story written by a baseball buff who had learned the game as a child with his grandfather and had fond memories of playing catch with his mom. At the very end of the piece he mentioned that he was a die-hard supporter of the Yankees. “I think this person is very authentic and is a rare Yankee fan,” one Red Sox supporter commented. “This person gets it and is not your typical Yankee fan,” a second observed. “Ugh, I really liked this text until I got to the part about them being a Yankees fan,” a third fan lamented, but “I think this particular person I would have more in common with than the typical, stereotypical Yankees fan. This person is okay.”

蒂姆和我尝试将洋基队球迷变得人性化时，也发生了类似的事情。我们让红袜队的球迷们读了一篇故事，故事的作者是一位棒球迷，他小时候跟祖父学过棒球，并且对和母亲一起玩接球有着美好的回忆。在故事的最后，他提到自己是洋基队的铁杆支持者。“我觉得这个人很真诚，是一位难得的洋基队球迷，”一位红袜队球迷评论道。“这个人很懂，而且不是那种典型的洋基队球迷，”另一位球迷评论道。“呃，我之前挺喜欢这篇文字的，直到看到他是洋基队球迷的部分，”第三位球迷感叹道，“但我觉得这个人比那些典型的、刻板的洋基队球迷更有共同点。这个人还不错。”

Herb Kelman ran into the same problem with Israelis and Palestinians. In the problem-solving workshops, they came to trust the individuals across the table, but they still held on to their stereotypes of the group.

赫伯·凯尔曼在与以色列人和巴勒斯坦人相处时也遇到了同样的问题。在问题解决研讨会上，他们开始信任坐在桌子对面的人，但仍然对这个群体抱有刻板印象。

In an ideal world, learning about individual group members will humanize the group, but often getting to know a person better just establishes her as different from the rest of her group. When we meet group members who defy a stereotype, our first instinct isn’t to see them as exemplars and rethink the stereotype. It’s to see them as exceptions and cling to our existing beliefs. So that attempt also failed. Back to the drawing board again.

在理想情况下，了解个体群体成员会让群体更具人性，但通常情况下，加深对一个人的了解只会让她显得与群体中的其他人不同。当我们遇到打破刻板印象的群体成员时，我们的第一反应不是将他们视为典范并重新思考刻板印象，而是将他们视为例外，并固守我们既有的信念。所以，这种尝试也失败了。我们又回到了最初的起点。

HYPOTHESIS 3: BEASTS OF HABIT

假设三：习惯之兽

My all-time favorite commercial starts with a close-up of a man and a woman kissing. As the camera zooms out, you see that he’s wearing an Ohio State Buckeyes sweatshirt and she’s wearing a Michigan Wolverines T-shirt. The caption: “ Without sports, this wouldn’t be disgusting.”

我最喜欢的广告以一男一女接吻的特写镜头开场。镜头拉远，你会看到他穿着俄亥俄州立大学七叶树队的运动衫，而她穿着密歇根大学狼獾队的T恤。广告词写道：“如果没有体育，这就不会令人恶心了。”

As a lifelong Wolverine fan, I was raised to boo at Buckeye fans. My uncle filled his basement with Michigan paraphernalia, got up at 3:00 a.m. on Saturdays to start setting up for tailgates, and drove a van with the Michigan logo emblazoned on the side. When I went back home to Michigan for grad school and one of my college roommates started medical school at Ohio State, it was only natural for me to preach my school’s superiority by phone and prosecute his intelligence by text.

作为一个金刚狼的铁杆粉丝，我从小就被灌输对七叶树球迷嘘声的恶习。我叔叔的地下室里堆满了密歇根大学的周边产品，每周六凌晨三点就起床，开始为车尾派对做准备，还开着一辆侧面印有密歇根大学标志的面包车。后来我回到密歇根读研究生，我的一个大学室友也去了俄亥俄州立大学医学院，我自然而然地在电话里宣扬我校的优越性，并在短信里批评他的智商。

A few years ago, I got to know an unusually kind woman in her seventies who works with Holocaust survivors. Last summer, when she mentioned that she had gone to Ohio State, my first response was “yuck.” My next reaction was to be disgusted with myself. Who cares where she went to school half a century ago? How did I get programmed this way? Suddenly it seemed odd that anyone would hate a team at all.

几年前，我认识了一位异常善良的七十多岁女士，她致力于帮助大屠杀幸存者。去年夏天，当她提到自己曾在俄亥俄州立大学上学时，我的第一反应是“恶心”。接下来的反应是对自己感到厌恶。谁在乎她半个世纪前在哪儿上学？我怎么会被设定成这样？突然间，我感觉竟然有人会讨厌一个团队，这感觉很奇怪。

In ancient Greece, Plutarch wrote of a wooden ship that Theseus sailed from Crete to Athens. To preserve the ship, as its old planks decayed, Athenians would replace them with new wood. Eventually all the planks had been replaced. It looked like the same ship, but none of its parts was the same. Was it still the same ship? Later, philosophers added a wrinkle: if you collected all the original planks and fashioned them into a ship, would that be the same ship?

在古希腊，普鲁塔克曾写到忒修斯驾驶一艘木船从克里特岛前往雅典。为了保存这艘船，由于旧木板腐烂，雅典人会用新木板替换它们。最终，所有木板都被替换了。船看起来和原来一样，但所有部件都不一样了。它还是同一艘船吗？后来，哲学家们又提出了一个问题：如果把所有原来的木板都收集起来，拼成一艘船，它还是同一艘船吗？

The ship of Theseus has a lot in common with a sports franchise. If you hail from Boston, you might hate the 1920 Yankees for taking Babe Ruth or the 1978 Yankees for dashing your World Series hopes. Although the current team carries the same name, the pieces are different. The players are long gone. So are the managers and coaches. The stadium has been replaced. “ You’re actually rooting for the clothes,” Jerry Seinfeld quipped. “Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to a different team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they hate him now. Boo! Different shirt! Boo!”

忒修斯之船和体育特许经营权有很多相似之处。如果你来自波士顿，你可能会恨1920年的洋基队，因为它选走了贝比·鲁斯；又或者恨1978年的洋基队，因为它粉碎了你闯入世界大赛的希望。虽然现在的球队名字相同，但阵容却大不相同。球员早已离队，教练和经理也早已不在人世。球场也换了。“你其实是在为球衣加油，”杰瑞·宋飞打趣道。“球迷们会非常喜爱一名球员，但如果他去了另一支球队，他们就会嘘他。这还是同一个人，只不过是换了件球衣而已；现在他们恨他了。嘘！换了件球衣！嘘！”

I think it’s a ritual. A fun but arbitrary ritual—a ceremony that we perform out of habit. We imprinted on it when we were young and impressionable, or were new to a city and looking for esprit de corps. Sure, there are moments where team loyalty does matter in our lives: it allows us to high-five acquaintances at bars and hug strangers at victory parades. It gives us a sense of solidarity. If you reflect on it, though, hating an opposing team is an accident of birth. If you had been born in New York instead of Boston, would you really hate the Yankees?

我认为这是一种仪式。一种有趣却又随意的仪式——一种我们出于习惯而进行的仪式。当我们年轻易受影响时，或者当我们初到一座城市，寻求团队精神时，我们都铭记于心。当然，团队忠诚在我们生活中确实很重要：它让我们能够在酒吧里与熟人击掌，在胜利游行中与陌生人拥抱。它赋予我们一种团结感。然而，如果你仔细想想，憎恨对手球队其实是与生俱来的意外。如果你出生在纽约而不是波士顿，你真的会恨洋基队吗？

For our third approach, Tim and I recruited fans of the Red Sox and Yankees. To prove their allegiance, they had to correctly name one of their team’s players from a photo—and the last year his team had won the World Series. Then we took some steps to open their minds. First, to help them recognize the complexity of their own beliefs, we asked them to list three positives and three negatives about fans of the opposing team. You saw the most common negatives earlier, but they were able to come up with some positives, too:

在我们的第三个方法中，蒂姆和我招募了红袜队和洋基队的球迷。为了证明他们的忠诚，他们必须从一张照片中正确说出他们球队的一名球员的名字，以及他所在球队赢得世界大赛的最后一年。然后，我们采取了一些措施来开拓他们的思维。首先，为了帮助他们认识到自身信念的复杂性，我们要求他们列出对方球队球迷的三个优点和三个缺点。你之前看到了最常见的缺点，但他们也能够说出一些优点：

WHAT RED SOX FANS LIKE ABOUT YANKEES FANS

红袜队球迷喜欢洋基队球迷的哪些方面

WHAT YANKEES FANS LIKE ABOUT RED SOX FANS

洋基球迷喜欢红袜球迷的哪些方面

Then we randomly assigned half of them to go the extra step of reflecting on the arbitrariness of their animosity:

然后，我们随机指派其中一半人进一步反思他们的敌意的任意性：

Think and write about how Yankee fans and Red Sox fans dislike each other for reasons that are fairly arbitrary. For example, if you were born into a family of fans of the rival team, you would likely also be a fan of them today.

思考并写下洋基队球迷和红袜队球迷如何因为一些相当随意的原因而互相讨厌。例如，如果你出生在一个敌对球队球迷的家庭，那么你今天很可能也会成为他们的球迷。

To gauge their animosity toward their opponents, we gave them a chance to decide how spicy the hot sauce sold in the rival team’s stadium should be. The backstory was that consumer product researchers were planning to do taste tests of hot sauces in baseball stadiums. People who were randomly assigned to reflect on the arbitrariness of their stereotypes selected less fiery hot sauce for their rival’s stadium. We also gave them a chance to sabotage a rival fan’s performance on a timed, paid math test by assigning harder problems, and those who considered the arbitrariness of their stereotypes picked easier questions for the rival fan.

为了衡量他们对对手的敌意，我们让他们决定对手球队主场出售的辣酱应该有多辣。背景是，消费品研究人员计划在棒球场进行辣酱口味测试。研究人员随机分配了一些参与者，让他们反思自己刻板印象的随意性，并为他们在主场选择的辣酱辣度较低。我们还让他们有机会通过布置更难的题目来破坏对手球迷在限时付费数学测试中的表现。那些考虑自己刻板印象随意性的人为对手球迷选择了更简单的题目。

People weren’t just more sympathetic toward a single fan—they changed their views toward their rival team as a whole. They were less likely to see their rival’s failure as their success, their rival’s success as a personal insult, and criticism of their rival as a personal compliment. And they were more likely to support their rival team in ways that would normally be unthinkable: wearing the rival team’s jerseys, sitting in its dugout at games, voting for its players in the All-Star Game, and even endorsing the team on social media. For some fans, it was almost like breaking a religious code, but their comments made it clear that they were rethinking their stances:

人们不仅对某位球迷更加同情，他们对整个敌对球队的看法也发生了改变。他们不再将敌对球队的失败视为自己的成功，不再将敌对球队的成功视为对自己的侮辱，也不再将对敌对球队的批评视为对自己的赞美。他们也更可能以一些通常难以想象的方式支持敌对球队：穿着敌对球队的球衣，在比赛现场坐在球队的休息区，在全明星赛上为敌对球队的球员投票，甚至在社交媒体上为敌对球队加油助威。对一些球迷来说，这几乎就像违背宗教戒律一样，但他们的言论清楚地表明，他们正在重新思考自己的立场：

I think it is pretty dumb to hate someone just based on the sports teams they enjoy supporting. Thinking about that makes me want to reconsider how I feel about some supporters of teams that I dislike.

If someone hated me because of the team that I loved, it would feel unfair. Almost like a form of prejudice because they are judging me based on one thing about me and hating me for that reason. After feeling these thoughts, I may change the way I interact with Red Sox fans.

The team they support is not necessarily indicative of who they are. Even though they are wrong.

我认为仅仅因为某人喜欢支持的球队就讨厌他，这很愚蠢。想到这一点，我不得不重新审视自己对一些我不喜欢的球队的支持者的看法。如果有人因为我热爱的球队而讨厌我，那感觉很不公平。这几乎就像是一种偏见，因为他们仅仅根据我的某件事来评判我，并因此而讨厌我。有了这些想法之后，我可能会改变与红袜队球迷互动的方式。他们支持的球队并不一定能代表他们是谁，即使他们错了。

We’d finally made some progress. Our next step was to examine the key ingredients behind the shift in fans’ views. We found that it was thinking about the arbitrariness of their animosity—not the positive qualities of their rival—that mattered. Regardless of whether they generated reasons to like their rivals, fans showed less hostility when they reflected on how silly the rivalry was. Knowing what it felt like to be disliked for ridiculous reasons helped them see that this conflict had real implications, that hatred for opposing fans isn’t all fun and games.

我们终于取得了一些进展。下一步是探究球迷观点转变背后的关键因素。我们发现，真正重要的是他们对于敌意的随意性——而非对手的优点——的思考。无论球迷是否找到了喜欢对手的理由，当他们反思对手的愚蠢时，他们的敌意反而有所减弱。体会到因为荒谬的理由而被讨厌的感受，帮助他们认识到这种冲突的真正含义，明白对敌对球迷的仇恨并非全是玩笑。

ENTERING A PARALLEL UNIVERSE

进入平行宇宙

Outside the lab, dismantling stereotypes and decreasing prejudice rarely happen overnight. Even if people aren’t on guard from the start, they’re quick to put their defenses up when their attitudes are challenged. Getting through to them requires more than just telling them that their views are arbitrary. A key step is getting them to do some counterfactual thinking: helping them consider what they’d believe if they were living in an alternative reality.

在实验室之外，消除刻板印象和减少偏见并非一朝一夕就能实现。即使人们一开始没有保持警惕，当他们的态度受到挑战时，他们也会迅速建立防御机制。要让他们理解，仅仅告诉他们他们的观点是武断的还不够。关键的一步是让他们进行一些反事实思考：帮助他们思考，如果生活在另一个现实中，他们会相信什么。

In psychology, counterfactual thinking involves imagining how the circumstances of our lives could have unfolded differently. When we realize how easily we could have held different stereotypes, we might be more willing to update our views. * To activate counterfactual thinking, you might ask people questions like: How would your stereotypes be different if you’d been born Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American? What opinions would you hold if you’d been raised on a farm versus in a city, or in a culture on the other side of the world? What beliefs would you cling to if you lived in the 1700s?

在心理学中，反事实思维指的是想象我们的生活环境可能会如何以不同的方式展开。当我们意识到我们很容易持有不同的刻板印象时，我们可能更愿意更新我们的观点。*为了激发反事实思维，你可以问别人这样的问题：如果你出生时是黑人、西班牙裔、亚裔或美洲原住民，你的刻板印象会有什么不同？如果你在农场长大，而不是在城市长大，或者在世界另一端的文化中长大，你会持有什么样的观点？如果你生活在18世纪，你会坚持什么样的信念？

You’ve already learned from debate champions and expert negotiators that asking people questions can motivate them to rethink their conclusions. What’s different about these kinds of counterfactual questions is that they invite people to explore the origins of their own beliefs—and reconsider their stances toward other groups.

你已经从辩论冠军和谈判专家那里学到，向人们提问可以促使他们重新思考自己的结论。这类反事实问题的不同之处在于，它们会引导人们探索自身信念的起源，并重新思考他们对其他群体的立场。

People gain humility when they reflect on how different circumstances could have led them to different beliefs. They might conclude that some of their past convictions had been too simplistic and begin to question some of their negative views. That doubt could leave them more curious about groups they’ve stereotyped, and they might end up discovering some unexpected commonalities.

当人们反思不同的环境如何导致他们形成不同的信念时，他们会变得谦逊。他们可能会得出结论，过去的一些信念过于简单，并开始质疑自己的一些负面观点。这种怀疑可能会让他们对自己刻板印象的群体更加好奇，最终可能会发现一些意想不到的共通之处。

Recently, I stumbled onto an opportunity to encourage some counterfactual thinking. A startup founder asked me to join an all-hands meeting to share insights on how to better understand other people’s personalities and our own. During our virtual fireside chat, she mentioned that she was an astrology fan and the company was full of them. I wondered if I could get some of them to see that they held inaccurate stereotypes about people based on the month in which they happened to be born. Here’s an excerpt of what happened:

最近，我偶然发现了一个鼓励反事实思维的机会。一位初创公司创始人邀请我参加一次全体会议，分享一些关于如何更好地理解他人和自身性格的见解。在我们虚拟的炉边谈话中，她提到自己是个星座迷，公司里有很多星座爱好者。我想知道我能否让其中一些人认识到，他们根据出生月份对人抱有错误的刻板印象。以下是当时会议的节选：

Me: You know we have no evidence whatsoever that horoscopes influence personality, right?

Founder: That’s such a Capricorn thing to say.

Me: I think I’m a Leo. I’d love to find out what evidence would change your mind.

Founder: So my partner has been trying for as long as we’ve been dating. He’s given up. There’s nothing that can convince me otherwise.

Me: Then you’re not thinking like a scientist. This is a religion for you.

Founder: Yeah, well, maybe a little.

Me: What if you’d been born in China instead of the U.S.? Some evidence just came out that if you’re a Virgo in China, you get discriminated against in hiring and also in dating. These poor Virgos are stereotyped as being difficult and ornery. *

Founder: So in the West, Adam, that same discrimination happens to Scorpios.

我：你知道我们没有任何证据表明星座会影响性格，对吧？创始人：这话太摩羯了。我：我想我是狮子座。我很想知道什么证据能改变你的想法。创始人：所以我的伴侣自从我们约会以来一直在努力。他放弃了。没有什么能让我相信不是这样。我：那你不是像科学家一样思考。这对你来说是一种宗教。创始人：是啊，嗯，可能有点。我：如果你出生在中国而不是美国会怎样？刚刚有证据表明，如果你在中国是处女座，你会在招聘和约会方面受到歧视。这些可怜的处女座被定型为难相处、脾气暴躁。*创始人：所以在西方，亚当，同样的歧视也发生在天蝎座身上。

Although the founder started out resistant to my argument, after considering how she might hold different stereotypes if she lived in China, she recognized a familiar pattern. She’d seen an entire group of people mistreated as a result of the positions of the sun and the moon on the day they happened to enter the world.

虽然这位创始人一开始对我的论点持反对态度，但在思考了如果她生活在中国可能会持有的不同刻板印象后，她意识到了一个熟悉的模式。她亲眼目睹过一群人因为太阳和月亮诞生那天的位置而遭受不公待遇。

Realizing how unfair discrimination based on zodiac signs was, the founder ended up jumping in to help me build my case. As we wrapped up the conversation, I offered to do a follow-up discussion on the science of personality. More than a quarter of the company signed up to participate. Afterward, one of the participants wrote that “the biggest takeaway from this chat is the importance of ‘unlearning’ things to avoid being ignorant.” Having grasped how arbitrary their stereotypes were, people were now more open to rethinking their views.

意识到基于星座的歧视是多么不公平，创始人最终主动提出帮助我论证。谈话结束时，我提出继续进行关于性格科学的讨论。公司超过四分之一的员工报名参加了这次讨论。之后，一位参与者写道：“这次谈话最大的收获是，‘忘掉’过去的事情，避免变得无知的重要性。” 意识到刻板印象是多么武断后，人们现在更愿意重新思考自己的观点。

Psychologists find that many of our beliefs are cultural truisms: widely shared, but rarely questioned. If we take a closer look at them, we often discover that they rest on shaky foundations. Stereotypes don’t have the structural integrity of a carefully built ship. They’re more like a tower in the game of Jenga—teetering on a small number of blocks, with some key supports missing. To knock it over, sometimes all we need to do is give it a poke. The hope is that people will rise to the occasion and build new beliefs on a stronger foundation.

心理学家发现，我们的许多信念都是文化真理：广为流传，却鲜受质疑。如果我们仔细审视，就会发现它们根基不稳。刻板印象不像一艘精心打造的巨轮那样拥有结构完整性。它们更像是叠叠乐游戏中的一座塔——摇摇欲坠，只靠几块积木支撑，缺少一些关键支撑。有时，我们只需轻轻一戳，就能把它推倒。希望人们能够迎难而上，在更坚实的基础上建立新的信念。

Can this approach extend to bigger divisions among people? I don’t believe for a minute that it will solve the Israel-Palestine conflict or stop racism. I do think it’s a step, though, toward something more fundamental than merely rethinking our stereotypes. We might question the underlying belief that it makes sense to hold opinions about groups at all.

这种方法会延伸到人与人之间更大的分歧吗？我根本不相信它能解决以巴冲突或消除种族主义。但我确实认为，这比仅仅反思我们的刻板印象更能迈向根本性的目标。我们或许会质疑，持有针对群体的观点是否合理这一根本信念。

If you get people to pause and reflect, they might decide that the very notion of applying group stereotypes to individuals is absurd. Research suggests that there are more similarities between groups than we recognize. And there’s typically more variety within groups than between them.

如果你让人们停下来思考，他们可能会觉得将群体刻板印象应用于个人的想法本身就很荒谬。研究表明，群体之间的相似性比我们认识到的要多。而且群体内部的多样性通常比群体之间的多样性更大。

Sometimes letting go of stereotypes means realizing that many members of a hated group aren’t so terrible after all. And that’s more likely to happen when we actually come face-to-face with them. For over half a century, social scientists have tested the effects of intergroup contact. In a meta-analysis of over five hundred studies with over 250,000 participants, interacting with members of another group reduced prejudice in 94 percent of the cases. Although intergroup communication isn’t a panacea, that is a staggering statistic. The most effective way to help people pull the unsteady Jenga blocks out of their stereotype towers is to talk with them in person. Which is precisely what Daryl Davis did.

有时候，放下刻板印象意味着意识到一个被憎恨的群体中的许多成员其实并没有那么糟糕。而当我们真正与他们面对面时，这种感觉更有可能发生。半个多世纪以来，社会科学家一直在测试跨群体接触的影响。一项涵盖五百多项研究、超过二十五万名参与者的荟萃分析显示，与其他群体成员互动在94%的案例中减少了偏见。虽然跨群体沟通并非万能药，但这已是一个令人震惊的统计数据。帮助人们从刻板印象的积木塔中拔出摇摇欲坠的积木的最有效方法，就是与他们面对面交谈。这正是达里尔·戴维斯所做的。

HOW A BLACK MUSICIAN CONFRONTS WHITE SUPREMACISTS

黑人音乐家如何对抗白人至上主义者

One day, Daryl was driving his car with the chief officer of a KKK chapter, whose official title was Exalted Cyclops. Before long, the Cyclops was sharing his stereotypes of Black people. They were an inferior species, he said—they had smaller brains, which made them unintelligent, and a genetic predisposition toward violence. When Daryl pointed out that he was Black but had never shot anyone or stolen a car, the Cyclops told him his criminal gene must be latent. It hadn’t come out yet.

有一天，达里尔和三K党一个分部的头目一起开车，这个头目正式头衔是“尊贵独眼巨人”。不久之后，独眼巨人就开始分享他对黑人的刻板印象。他说黑人是劣等物种——他们的脑容量较小，导致智力低下，而且基因上就有暴力倾向。当达里尔指出他是黑人，却从未开枪打死过人或偷过车时，独眼巨人告诉他，他的犯罪基因一定是潜伏的，还没有显露出来。

Daryl decided to beat the Cyclops at his own game. He challenged him to name three Black serial killers. When the Cyclops couldn’t name any, Daryl rattled off a long list of well-known white serial killers and told the Cyclops that he must be one. When the Cyclops protested that he’d never killed anybody, Daryl turned his own argument against him and said that his serial-killer gene must be latent.

达里尔决定用独眼巨人的招数打败他。他挑战独眼巨人说出三个黑人连环杀手的名字。独眼巨人一个也说不出来，达里尔便一口气说出了一长串臭名昭著的白人连环杀手，并告诉独眼巨人，他肯定就是其中之一。独眼巨人辩称自己从未杀过人，达里尔便反驳道，他的连环杀手基因一定是潜伏的。

“Well, that’s stupid,” the flustered Cyclops replied. “Well, duh!” Daryl agreed. “You’re right. What I said about you was stupid, but no more stupid than what you said about me.” The Cyclops got very quiet and changed the subject. Several months later, he told Daryl that he was still thinking about that conversation. Daryl had planted a seed of doubt and made him curious about his own beliefs. The Cyclops ended up quitting the KKK and giving his hood and his robe to Daryl.

“嗯，那太蠢了，”慌乱的独眼巨人回答道。“嗯，废话！”达里尔表示赞同。“你说得对。我对你的评价很蠢，但不会比你对我的评价更蠢。”独眼巨人突然安静下来，转移了话题。几个月后，他告诉达里尔，他还在思考那次谈话。达里尔种下了怀疑的种子，让他对自己的信仰产生了好奇。独眼巨人最终退出了三K党，把他的兜帽和长袍送给了达里尔。

Daryl is obviously extraordinary—not only in his ability to wage a one-man war on prejudice, but also in his inclination to do so. As a general rule, it’s those with greater power who need to do more of the rethinking, both because they’re more likely to privilege their own perspectives and because their perspectives are more likely to go unquestioned. In most cases, the oppressed and marginalized have already done a great deal of contortion to fit in.

达里尔显然非同寻常——不仅因为他能够独自发起一场对抗偏见的战争，更因为他乐于这么做。通常来说，那些拥有更大权力的人更需要进行反思，这既是因为他们更有可能坚持自己的观点，也是因为他们的观点更有可能不受质疑。在大多数情况下，被压迫和边缘化的人已经做出了巨大的扭曲来融入其中。

Having been the target of racism since childhood, Daryl had a lifetime of legitimate reasons to harbor animosity toward white people. He was still willing to approach white supremacists with an open mind and give them the opportunity to rethink their views. But it shouldn’t have been Daryl’s responsibility to challenge white supremacists and put himself at risk. In an ideal world, the Cyclops would have taken it upon himself to educate his peers. Some other former KKK members have stepped up, working independently and with Daryl to advocate for the oppressed and reform the structures that produce oppression in the first place.

达里尔自幼遭受种族歧视，一生中对白人怀有敌意，这完全是他应有的理由。他仍然愿意以开放的心态与白人至上主义者接触，给予他们重新思考观点的机会。但挑战白人至上主义者并让自己陷入危险，这本不应该是达里尔的责任。在理想的世界里，独眼巨人应该主动承担起教育同龄人的责任。其他一些前三K党成员也纷纷挺身而出，他们独立行动，或与达里尔合作，为受压迫者发声，并改革那些最初滋生压迫的体制。

As we work toward systemic change, Daryl urges us not to overlook the power of conversation. When we choose not to engage with people because of their stereotypes or prejudice, we give up on opening their minds. “We are living in space-age times, yet there are still so many of us thinking with stone-age minds,” he reflects. “Our ideology needs to catch up to our technology.” He estimates that he has helped upwards of two hundred white supremacists rethink their beliefs and leave the KKK and other neo-Nazi groups. Many of them have gone on to educate their families and friends. Daryl is quick to point out that he hasn’t directly persuaded these men to change their minds. “I didn’t convert anybody,” he says. “I gave them reason to think about their direction in life, and they thought about it, and thought, ‘I need a better path, and this is the way to go.’”

在我们努力推动系统性变革的过程中，达里尔敦促我们不要忽视对话的力量。如果我们因为人们的刻板印象或偏见而选择不与他们交流，我们就放弃了打开他们思想的大门。“我们生活在太空时代，但仍然有许多人思维方式停留在石器时代，”他反思道。“我们的意识形态需要跟上科技的步伐。”他估计，他已经帮助了超过两百名白人至上主义者重新思考他们的信仰，并脱离了三K党和其他新纳粹组织。他们中的许多人后来继续教育他们的家人和朋友。达里尔很快指出，他并没有直接说服这些人改变想法。“我没有改变任何人，”他说。“我给了他们思考人生方向的理由，他们思考之后，认为‘我需要一条更好的道路，而这就是我要走的路。’”

Daryl doesn’t do this by preaching or prosecuting. When he begins a dialogue with white supremacists, many are initially surprised by his thoughtfulness. As they start to see him as an individual and spend more time with him, they often tap into a common identity around shared interests in topics like music. Over time, he helps them see that they joined these hate groups for reasons that weren’t their own—it was a family tradition dating back multiple generations, or someone had told them their jobs were being taken by Black men. As they realize how little they truly know about other groups, and how shallow stereotypes are, they start to think again.

达里尔并非通过说教或起诉来做到这一点。当他开始与白人至上主义者对话时，许多人最初对他的深思熟虑感到惊讶。随着他们开始将他视为个体，并与其相处更长时间，他们常常在音乐等话题上找到共同的兴趣爱好。随着时间的推移，他帮助他们认识到，他们加入这些仇恨团体并非出于自身原因——这可能是几代人以来的家族传统，也可能是有人告诉他们，他们的工作被黑人男性抢走了。当他们意识到自己对其他群体的了解如此之少，以及刻板印象如此肤浅时，他们开始重新思考。

After getting to know Daryl, one Imperial Wizard didn’t stop at leaving the KKK. He shut down the chapter. Years later, he asked Daryl to be his daughter’s godfather.

一位帝国巫师在认识达里尔之后，并没有就此罢休，而是关闭了三K党。多年后，他邀请达里尔做他女儿的教父。

CHAPTER 7 第七章

Vaccine Whisperers and Mild-Mannered Interrogators

疫苗传言者和温文尔雅的审讯者

How the Right Kind of Listening Motivates People to Change

正确的倾听如何激励人们改变

It’s a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn’t want to hear.

—Attributed to Dick Cavett

很少有人愿意听自己不想听的话。——迪克·卡维特

When Marie-Hélène Étienne-Rousseau went into labor, she broke down in tears. It was September 2018, and her baby wasn’t due until December. Just before midnight, Tobie arrived, weighing just two pounds. His body was so tiny that his head could fit in the palm of her hand, and Marie-Hélène was terrified that he wouldn’t survive. Tobie spent only a few seconds in her arms before he was rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. He needed a mask to breathe and was soon taken to surgery for internal bleeding. It would be months before he was allowed to go home.

玛丽-海伦·艾蒂安-卢梭临产时，失声痛哭。当时是2018年9月，而她的预产期是12月。午夜前，托比出生了，体重只有两磅。他的身体娇小，头只能放在她的手掌里，玛丽-海伦非常担心他活不下来。托比在她怀里待了几秒钟，就被紧急送往新生儿重症监护室。他需要面罩呼吸，很快就被送往手术室治疗内出血。几个月后，他才被允许回家。

While Tobie was still in the hospital, Marie-Hélène was shopping for diapers when she saw a headline about measles spreading in her province of Quebec. She hadn’t had Tobie vaccinated. It wasn’t even a question—he seemed too fragile. She hadn’t vaccinated her three other children, either; it wasn’t the norm in her community. Her friends and neighbors took it for granted that vaccines were dangerous and passed around horror stories about their side effects. Still, the fact remained: Quebec had already had two serious measles outbreaks that decade.

托比还在医院的时候，玛丽-海伦正在买尿布，这时她看到一则关于魁北克省麻疹蔓延的新闻。她没有给托比接种疫苗。这根本不算什么问题——他看起来太虚弱了。她也没有给其他三个孩子接种疫苗；这在她所在的社区并不常见。她的朋友和邻居们理所当然地认为疫苗很危险，并四处传播疫苗副作用的恐怖故事。然而，事实依然存在：魁北克在那十年里已经爆发过两次严重的麻疹疫情。

Today in the developed world, measles is on the rise for the first time in at least half a century, and its mortality rate is around one in a thousand. In the developing world, it’s closer to one in a hundred. Estimates suggest that from 2016 to 2018, measles deaths spiked worldwide by 58 percent, with over a hundred thousand casualties. These deaths could have been prevented by the vaccine, which has saved roughly 20 million lives in the past two decades. Although epidemiologists recommend two doses of the measles vaccine and a minimum immunization rate of 95 percent, around the globe only 85 percent of people get the first dose and just 67 percent continue to the second. Many of those who skip the shot simply do not believe in the science.

如今，发达国家的麻疹发病率至少半个世纪以来首次上升，死亡率约为千分之一。在发展中国家，死亡率接近百分之一。据估计，2016年至2018年，全球麻疹死亡人数飙升58%，伤亡人数超过十万。这些死亡本可以通过疫苗来预防，疫苗在过去二十年中挽救了约2000万人的生命。尽管流行病学家建议接种两剂麻疹疫苗，且最低免疫接种率应达到95%，但全球只有85%的人接种了第一剂，只有67%的人继续接种第二剂。许多不接种疫苗的人根本不相信疫苗的科学性。

Government officials have tried to prosecute the problem, some warning that the unvaccinated could be fined up to a thousand dollars and sentenced to jail for up to six months. Many schools shut their doors to unvaccinated children, and one county even banned them from enclosed public places. When such measures failed to solve the problem, public officials turned to preaching. Since people held unfounded fears about vaccines, it was time to educate them with a dose of the truth.

政府官员试图起诉这一问题，一些人警告称，未接种疫苗者可能被处以最高一千美元的罚款，并被判处最高六个月的监禁。许多学校对未接种疫苗的儿童关闭大门，一个县甚至禁止他们进入封闭的公共场所。当这些措施未能解决问题时，政府官员转而采取宣教措施。由于人们对疫苗抱有毫无根据的恐惧，是时候用真相来教育他们了。

The results were often disappointing. In a pair of experiments in Germany, introducing people to the research on vaccine safety backfired: they ended up seeing vaccines as riskier. Similarly, when Americans read accounts of the dangers of measles, saw pictures of children suffering from it, or learned of an infant who nearly died from it, their interest in vaccination didn’t rise at all. And when they were informed that there was no evidence that the measles vaccine causes autism, those who already had concerns actually became less interested in vaccinating. It seemed that no logical argument or data-driven explanation could shake their conviction that vaccines were unsafe.

结果往往令人失望。在德国进行的两项实验中，向人们介绍疫苗安全性研究却适得其反：他们最终认为疫苗风险更高。同样，当美国人阅读有关麻疹危害的报道、看到患麻疹儿童的照片，或了解到婴儿差点死于麻疹时，他们对疫苗接种的兴趣丝毫未增。而当他们得知没有证据表明麻疹疫苗会导致自闭症时，那些原本就心存疑虑的人反而对接种疫苗失去了兴趣。似乎没有任何合乎逻辑的论据或基于数据的解释能够动摇他们对疫苗不安全的信念。

This is a common problem in persuasion: what doesn’t sway us can make our beliefs stronger. Much like a vaccine inoculates our physical immune system against a virus, the act of resistance fortifies our psychological immune system. Refuting a point of view produces antibodies against future influence attempts. We become more certain of our opinions and less curious about alternative views. Counterarguments no longer surprise us or stump us—we have our rebuttals ready.

这是说服过程中常见的问题：那些无法动摇我们的观点反而会让我们更加坚定自己的信念。就像疫苗能增强我们身体的免疫系统抵御病毒一样，抵抗行为也能增强我们的心理免疫系统。反驳一个观点会产生抗体，抵御未来试图施加影响的尝试。我们会更加坚定自己的观点，对其他观点的好奇心也会减少。反驳不再让我们感到惊讶或困惑——我们已经准备好了反驳的论据。

Marie-Hélène Étienne-Rousseau had been through that journey. Visits to the doctor with her older kids followed a familiar script. The doctor extolled the benefits of vaccines, warned her about the risks of refusing them, and stuck to generic messaging instead of engaging with her particular questions. The whole experience reeked of condescension. Marie-Hélène felt as if she were being attacked, “as if she were accusing me of wanting my kids to get sick. As if I were a bad mother.”

玛丽-海伦·艾蒂安-卢梭就经历过这样的经历。她带着大孩子去看医生，总是遵循着熟悉的套路。医生夸赞疫苗的好处，警告她拒绝接种的风险，并且总是泛泛而谈，而不是回答她具体的问题。整个过程都充斥着一种居高临下的傲慢态度。玛丽-海伦觉得自己像是受到了攻击，“就好像她在指责我希望孩子们生病。就好像我是个坏妈妈。”

When tiny Tobie was finally cleared to leave after five months in the hospital, he was still extremely vulnerable. The nurses knew it was their last chance to have him vaccinated, so they called in a vaccine whisperer—a local doctor with a radical approach for helping young parents rethink their resistance to immunizations. He didn’t preach to parents or prosecute them. He didn’t get political. He put on his scientist hat and interviewed them.

小小的托比在医院住了五个月，终于获准出院时，他仍然极其脆弱。护士们知道这是最后一次给他接种疫苗的机会，于是他们请来了一位“疫苗耳语者”——一位致力于帮助年轻父母反思免疫接种抵触情绪的当地医生。他没有对父母们说教，也没有对他们进行起诉。他没有参与政治，而是戴上科学家的帽子，采访了他们。

*Calvin & Hobbes* © 1993 Watterson. Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION . All rights reserved.

《卡尔文与霍布斯》© 1993 Watterson。经安德鲁斯·麦克米尔联合出版社（ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION）许可转载。保留所有权利。

MOTIVATING THROUGH INTERVIEWING

通过面试激励

In the early 1980s, a clinical psychologist named Bill Miller was troubled by his field’s attitude toward people with addictions. It was common for therapists and counselors to accuse their substance-abusing clients of being pathological liars who were living in denial. That didn’t track with what Miller was seeing up close in his own work treating people with alcohol problems, where preaching and prosecuting typically boomeranged. “People who drink too much are usually aware of it,” Miller told me. “If you try to persuade them that they do drink too much or need to make a change, you evoke resistance, and they are less likely to change.”

20世纪80年代初，一位名叫比尔·米勒的临床心理学家，对他所在领域对待成瘾者的态度感到困扰。当时，治疗师和咨询师常常指责滥用药物的来访者是病态的说谎者，活在自我否定之中。这与米勒在自己治疗酗酒问题患者时亲眼目睹的情况截然不同，在工作中，说教和指责通常适得其反。“酗酒的人通常都意识到了这一点，”米勒告诉我。“如果你试图说服他们，他们确实喝多了，或者需要做出改变，你只会引发他们的抵触情绪，他们就不太可能改变。”

Instead of attacking or demeaning his clients, Miller started asking them questions and listening to their answers. Soon afterward, he published a paper on his philosophy, which found its way into the hands of Stephen Rollnick, a young nurse trainee working in addiction treatment. A few years later, the two happened to meet in Australia and realized that what they were exploring was much bigger than just a new approach to treatment. It was an entirely different way of helping people change.

米勒没有攻击或贬低他的来访者，而是开始向他们提问，倾听他们的回答。不久之后，他发表了一篇阐述其哲学的论文，这篇论文被一位从事成瘾治疗的年轻实习护士斯蒂芬·罗尔尼克（Stephen Rollnick）看到了。几年后，两人在澳大利亚偶然相遇，意识到他们探索的远不止一种新的治疗方法。这是一种帮助人们改变的完全不同的方式。

Together, they developed the core principles of a practice called motivational interviewing. The central premise is that we can rarely motivate someone else to change. We’re better off helping them find their own motivation to change.

他们共同制定了动机访谈的核心原则。其核心前提是，我们很少能够激励他人改变。我们最好帮助他们找到改变的动力。

Let’s say you’re a student at Hogwarts, and you’re worried your uncle is a fan of Voldemort. A motivational interview might go like this:

假设你是霍格沃茨的学生，你担心你的叔叔是伏地魔的粉丝。一场激励式访谈可能会这样进行：

You: I’d love to better understand your feelings about He Who Must Not Be Named.

Uncle: Well, he’s the most powerful wizard alive. Also, his followers promised me a fancy title.

You: Interesting. Is there anything you dislike about him?

Uncle: Hmm. I’m not crazy about all the murdering.

You: Well, nobody’s perfect.

Uncle: Yeah, but the killing is really bad.

You: Sounds like you have some reservations about Voldemort. What’s stopped you from abandoning him?

Uncle: I’m afraid he might direct the murdering toward me.

You: That’s a reasonable fear. I’ve felt it too. I’m curious: are there any principles that matter so deeply to you that you’d be willing to take that risk?

你：我很想更好地了解你对那个不能提名字的巫师的感受。叔叔：嗯，他是世上最强大的巫师。而且，他的追随者答应给我一个很高的头衔。你：有意思。你不喜欢他什么？叔叔：嗯。我不喜欢谋杀。你：嗯，人无完人。叔叔：是啊，但是杀戮真的很糟糕。你：听起来你对伏地魔有些保留。是什么阻止了你抛弃他？叔叔：我担心他会把谋杀指向我。你：这是一种合理的恐惧。我也感受到了。我很好奇：有什么原则对你来说如此重要，以至于你愿意冒这个险？

Motivational interviewing starts with an attitude of humility and curiosity. We don’t know what might motivate someone else to change, but we’re genuinely eager to find out. The goal isn’t to tell people what to do; it’s to help them break out of overconfidence cycles and see new possibilities. Our role is to hold up a mirror so they can see themselves more clearly, and then empower them to examine their beliefs and behaviors . That can activate a rethinking cycle, in which people approach their own views more scientifically. They develop more humility about their knowledge, doubt in their convictions, and curiosity about alternative points of view.

动机访谈始于谦逊和好奇的态度。我们不知道什么能促使他人改变，但我们真心渴望找到答案。目标并非告诉人们该做什么，而是帮助他们打破过度自信的循环，发现新的可能性。我们的角色就像一面镜子，让他们更清晰地审视自己，并赋予他们审视自身信念和行为的力量。这可以启动一个反思周期，让人们更科学地看待自身的观点。他们会更加谦逊地对待自己的知识，质疑自己的信念，并对其他观点产生好奇。

The process of motivational interviewing involves three key techniques:

动机访谈的过程涉及三个关键技巧：

Asking open-ended questions

提出开放式问题
Engaging in reflective listening

进行反思性倾听
Affirming the person’s desire and ability to change

肯定患者改变的愿望和能力

As Marie-Hélène was getting ready to take Tobie home, the vaccine whisperer the nurses called was a neonatologist and researcher named Arnaud Gagneur. His specialty was applying the techniques of motivational interviewing to vaccination discussions. When Arnaud sat down with Marie-Hélène, he didn’t judge her for not vaccinating her children, nor did he order her to change. He was like a scientist or “a less abrasive Socrates,” as journalist Eric Boodman described him in reporting on their meeting.

玛丽-海伦准备带托比回家时，护士们联系上了一位名叫阿诺·加格尼厄（Arnaud Gagneur）的疫苗“耳语者”。加格尼厄是一位新生儿科医生兼研究员。他的专长是将动机访谈技巧应用于疫苗接种讨论。当阿诺和玛丽-海伦坐在一起时，他没有因为她没有给孩子接种疫苗而责备她，也没有命令她改变。他就像一位科学家，或者像记者埃里克·布德曼（Eric Boodman）在报道他们会面时所描述的那样，“一个不那么粗鲁的苏格拉底”。

Arnaud told Marie-Hélène he was afraid of what might happen if Tobie got the measles, but he accepted her decision and wanted to understand it better. For over an hour, he asked her open-ended questions about how she had reached the decision not to vaccinate. He listened carefully to her answers, acknowledging that the world is full of confusing information about vaccine safety. At the end of the discussion, Arnaud reminded Marie-Hélène that she was free to choose whether or not to immunize, and he trusted her ability and intentions.

阿诺告诉玛丽-海伦，他担心托比如果感染麻疹会有什么后果，但他接受了她的决定，并想更深入地了解她。一个多小时里，他问了一些开放式的问题，关于她是如何做出不接种疫苗的决定的。他认真倾听她的回答，承认世界上充斥着关于疫苗安全性的令人困惑的信息。讨论结束时，阿诺提醒玛丽-海伦，她可以自由选择是否接种疫苗，他相信她的能力和意愿。

Before Marie-Hélène left the hospital, she had Tobie vaccinated. A key turning point, she recalls, was when Arnaud “told me that whether I chose to vaccinate or not, he respected my decision as someone who wanted the best for my kids. Just that sentence—to me, it was worth all the gold in the world.”

玛丽-海伦出院前给托比接种了疫苗。她回忆说，一个关键的转折点是阿尔诺“告诉我，无论我选择接种与否，他都尊重我的决定，因为我希望孩子们得到最好的一切。就那一句话——对我来说，它值这么多钱。”

Marie-Hélène didn’t just allow Tobie to be vaccinated—she had his older siblings vaccinated at home by a public health nurse. She even asked if Arnaud would speak with her sister-in-law about vaccinating her children. She said her decision was unusual enough in her antivaccination community that “it was like setting off a bomb.”

玛丽-海伦不仅允许托比接种疫苗，还让他的哥哥姐姐们在家由一位公共卫生护士接种疫苗。她甚至询问阿诺是否愿意和她的嫂子商量为孩子们接种疫苗的事。她说，在她所在的反疫苗社区里，她的决定非同寻常，“就像引爆了一颗炸弹”。

Marie-Hélène Étienne-Rousseau is one of many parents who have undergone a conversion like this. Vaccine whisperers don’t just help people change their beliefs; they help them change their behaviors, too. In Arnaud’s first study, with mothers in the maternity ward after birth, 72 percent said they planned to vaccinate their children; after a motivational interviewing session with a vaccine counselor, 87 percent were onboard. In Arnaud’s next experiment, if mothers attended a motivational interviewing session, children were 9 percent more likely to be fully vaccinated two years later. If this sounds like a small effect, remember that it was the result of only a single conversation in the maternity ward—and it was sufficient to change behavior as far out as twenty-four months later. Soon the government health ministry was investing millions of dollars in Arnaud’s motivational interviewing program, with a plan to send vaccine whisperers into the maternity wards of every hospital in Quebec.

玛丽-海伦·艾蒂安-卢梭是众多经历过类似转变的父母之一。疫苗悄悄话者不仅帮助人们改变信念，也帮助他们改变行为。在阿诺德的第一项研究中，产后住院的母亲中，72% 表示计划为孩子接种疫苗；在与疫苗咨询师进行动机性访谈后，87% 表示同意。在阿诺德的下一个实验中，如果母亲们参加了动机性访谈，孩子两年后完全接种疫苗的可能性会高出 9%。如果这听起来像是一个微小的影响，请记住，这仅仅是产房里一次谈话的结果——而这足以改变长达二十四个月后的行为。很快，政府卫生部就为阿诺德的动机性访谈项目投资了数百万美元，计划派遣疫苗悄悄话者进入魁北克每家医院的产房。

Today, motivational interviewing is used around the world by tens of thousands of practitioners—there are registered trainers throughout America and in many parts of Europe, and courses to build the necessary skills are offered as widely as Argentina, Malaysia, and South Africa. Motivational interviewing has been the subject of more than a thousand controlled trials; a bibliography that simply lists them runs sixty-seven pages. It’s been used effectively by health professionals to help people stop smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol, gambling, and having unsafe sex, as well as to improve their diets and exercise habits, overcome eating disorders, and lose weight. It’s also been applied successfully by coaches to build grit in professional soccer players, teachers to nudge students to get a full night’s sleep, consultants to prepare teams for organizational change, public health workers to encourage people to disinfect water in Zambia, and environmental activists to help people do something about climate change. Similar techniques have opened the minds of prejudiced voters, and when conflict mediators help separated parents resolve disputes about their children, motivational interviewing is twice as likely to result in a full agreement as standard mediation.

如今，动机性访谈已被世界各地成千上万的实践者运用——美国和欧洲许多地方都有注册培训师，而培养必要技能的课程甚至在阿根廷、马来西亚和南非等地都有开设。动机性访谈已成为一千多项对照试验的主题；仅列举这些试验的参考书目就有六十七页。医疗专业人士有效地运用它帮助人们戒烟、戒毒、戒酒、戒赌、戒除不安全性行为，以及改善饮食和运动习惯、克服饮食失调和减肥。教练们也成功地运用它培养职业足球运动员的毅力，教师们运用它督促学生获得充足的睡眠，顾问们运用它为团队做好组织变革的准备，公共卫生工作者们在赞比亚鼓励人们对水进行消毒，环保人士们运用它帮助人们应对气候变化。类似的技术也打开了有偏见的选民的思路，当冲突调解员帮助分居的父母解决有关子女的纠纷时，动机访谈达成完全协议的可能性是标准调解的两倍。

Overall, motivational interviewing has a statistically and clinically meaningful effect on behavior change in roughly three out of four studies, and psychologists and physicians using it have a success rate of four in five. There aren’t many practical theories in the behavioral sciences with a body of evidence this robust.

总体而言，大约四分之三的研究表明，动机性访谈对行为改变具有统计学和临床意义，使用动机性访谈的心理学家和医生的成功率为五分之四。在行为科学领域，拥有如此强有力证据的实用理论并不多见。

Motivational interviewing isn’t limited to professional settings—it’s relevant to everyday decisions and interactions. One day a friend called me for advice on whether she should get back together with her ex. I was a fan of the idea, but I didn’t think it was my place to tell her what to do. Instead of offering my opinion, I asked her to walk through the pros and cons and tell me how they stacked up against what she wanted in a partner. She ended up talking herself into rekindling the relationship. The conversation felt like magic, because I hadn’t tried to persuade her or even given any advice. *

动机访谈并不局限于职场——它与日常决策和互动息息相关。有一天，一位朋友打电话给我，请教她是否应该和前任复合。我很喜欢这个想法，但我觉得我没有资格指手画脚。我没有直接提出我的意见，而是请她仔细分析一下这种复合的利弊，并告诉我这些利弊与她对伴侣的期望值相比如何。最终，她说服自己重新开始了这段感情。这场对话感觉很奇妙，因为我没有试图说服她，甚至没有给出任何建议。*

When people ignore advice, it isn’t always because they disagree with it. Sometimes they’re resisting the sense of pressure and the feeling that someone else is controlling their decision. To protect their freedom, instead of giving commands or offering recommendations, a motivational interviewer might say something along the lines of “Here are a few things that have helped me—do you think any of them might work for you?”

人们忽视建议并不总是因为他们不同意。有时，他们是在抵制压力，以及被别人控制决定的感觉。为了保护他们的自由，动机访谈者不会下达命令或提供建议，而是会这样说：“以下是一些对我有帮助的事情——你觉得其中哪些可能对你有用？”

You’ve seen how asking questions can help with self-persuasion. Motivational interviewing goes a step further, guiding others to self-discovery. You got a glimpse of it in action when Daryl Davis asked KKK members how they could hate him when they didn’t even know him, and now I want to unpack the relevant techniques in depth. When we try to convince people to think again, our first instinct is usually to start talking. Yet the most effective way to help others open their minds is often to listen.

你已经了解了提问如何有助于自我说服。动机性访谈则更进一步，引导他人进行自我发现。当达里尔·戴维斯问三K党成员，他们怎么会在根本不认识他的情况下恨他时，你已经见识到了动机性访谈的真谛。现在我想深入剖析相关的技巧。当我们试图说服别人重新思考时，我们的第一反应通常是开口说话。然而，帮助他人敞开心扉最有效的方法往往是倾听。

BEYOND THE CLINIC

诊所之外

Years ago I got a call asking for help from a biotechnology startup. The CEO, Jeff, was a scientist by training; he liked to have all the necessary data before making a decision. After more than a year and a half at the helm, he still hadn’t rolled out a vision for the company, and it was in danger of failing. A trio of consultants tried to convince him to offer some direction, and he fired them all. Before the head of HR threw in the towel, she threw a Hail Mary pass and contacted an academic. It was the perfect time for a motivational interview: Jeff seemed reluctant to change, and I had no idea why. When we met, I decided to see if I could help him find his motivation to change. Here are the pivotal moments from our conversation:

几年前，我接到一家生物技术初创公司的电话，寻求帮助。这家公司的首席执行官杰夫是一位训练有素的科学家；他喜欢在做决定之前掌握所有必要的数据。掌舵一年半多之后，他仍然没有为公司制定出一个愿景，公司岌岌可危。三位顾问试图说服他提供一些指导，但他把他们都解雇了。在人力资源主管放弃之前，她孤注一掷，联系了一位学者。这正好是一次激励性访谈的绝佳时机：杰夫似乎不愿改变，而我完全不明白原因。我们见面后，我决定看看能否帮助他找到改变的动力。以下是我们谈话中的几个关键时刻：

Me: I really enjoy being the guy who gets hired after three consultants get fired. I’d love to hear how they screwed up.

Jeff: The first consultant gave me answers instead of asking questions. That was arrogant: how could he solve a problem before he’d even taken the time to understand it? The next two did a better job learning from me, but they still ended up trying to tell me how to do my job.

Me: So why did you bother to bring in another outsider?

Jeff: I’m looking for some fresh ideas on leadership.

Me: It’s not my place to tell you how to lead. What does leadership mean to you?

Jeff: Making systemic decisions, having a well-thought-out strategy.

Me: Are there any leaders you admire for those qualities?

Jeff: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Steve Jobs.

我：我很享受在三个顾问被解雇后被录用的那个人。我很想知道他们是怎么把事情搞砸的。杰夫：第一个顾问直接给我答案而不是提问。这太傲慢了：他怎么能在还没花时间去理解问题之前就解决问题呢？接下来的两位顾问向我学习得更好，但他们最终还是试图告诉我该如何做我的工作。我：那你为什么还要费心找另一个外来者呢？杰夫：我在寻找一些关于领导力的新想法。我：我没有资格告诉你如何领导。领导力对你来说意味着什么？杰夫：做出系统性的决策，拥有深思熟虑的战略。我：有没有哪位领导者具备这些品质，你很钦佩？杰夫：亚伯拉罕·林肯、马丁·路德·金、史蒂夫·乔布斯。

That was a turning point. In motivational interviewing, there’s a distinction between sustain talk and change talk. Sustain talk is commentary about maintaining the status quo. Change talk is referencing a desire, ability, need, or commitment to make adjustments. When contemplating a change, many people are ambivalent—they have some reasons to consider it but also some reasons to stay the course. Miller and Rollnick suggest asking about and listening for change talk, and then posing some questions about why and how they might change.

那是一个转折点。在动机访谈中，维持性谈话和改变性谈话是有区别的。维持性谈话是关于维持现状的评论。改变性谈话指的是做出调整的愿望、能力、需求或承诺。在考虑改变时，许多人会感到矛盾——他们既有考虑改变的理由，也有坚持下去的理由。米勒和罗尔尼克建议询问和倾听改变性谈话，然后提出一些关于他们为什么以及如何改变的问题。

Say you have a friend who mentions a desire to stop smoking. You might respond by asking why she’s considering quitting. If she says a doctor recommended it, you might follow up by inquiring about her own motivations: what does she think of the idea? If she offers a reason why she’s determined to stop, you might ask what her first step toward quitting could be. “ Change talk is a golden thread,” clinical psychologist Theresa Moyers says. “What you need to do is you need to pick that thread up and pull it.” So that’s what I did with Jeff.

假设你有个朋友提到想戒烟。你可以问她为什么考虑戒烟。如果她说是医生推荐的，你可以接着问她自己的动机：她对这个想法有什么看法？如果她给出了自己决心戒烟的理由，你可以问她戒烟的第一步是什么。“改变谈话就像一根金线，”临床心理学家特蕾莎·莫耶斯说。“你需要做的就是把这根线捡起来，拉出来。”所以我对杰夫就是这么做的。

Me: What do you appreciate most about the leaders you named?

Jeff: They all had vivid visions. They inspired people to achieve extraordinary things.

Me: Interesting. If Steve Jobs were in your shoes right now, what do you think he’d do?

Jeff: He’d probably get his leadership team fired up about a bold idea and create a reality distortion field to make it seem possible. Maybe I should do that, too.

我：你最欣赏你提到的这些领导者的哪一点？杰夫：他们都有清晰的愿景，激励人们去实现非凡的成就。我：有意思。如果史蒂夫·乔布斯现在处于你的位置，你觉得他会怎么做？杰夫：他可能会让他的领导团队对一个大胆的想法充满热情，并创造一个现实扭曲力场，让它看起来有可能实现。也许我也应该这么做。

A few weeks later, Jeff stood up at an executive off-site to deliver his first-ever vision speech. When I heard about it, I was beaming with pride: I had conquered my inner logic bully and led him to find his own motivation.

几周后，杰夫在一次高管会议中发表了他人生中的第一场愿景演讲。当我听到这个消息时，我感到无比自豪：我战胜了内心的逻辑霸凌，并引导他找到了自己的动力。

Unfortunately, the board ended up shutting down the company anyway.

不幸的是，董事会最终还是关闭了该公司。

Jeff’s speech had fallen flat. He stumbled through notes on a napkin and didn’t stir up enthusiasm about the company’s direction. I had overlooked a key step—helping him think about how to execute the change effectively.

杰夫的演讲毫无亮点。他用餐巾纸磕磕绊绊地做着笔记，并没有激起大家对公司发展方向的热情。我忽略了一个关键步骤——帮助他思考如何有效地执行变革。

There’s a fourth technique of motivational interviewing, which is often recommended for the end of a conversation and for transition points: summarizing. The idea is to explain your understanding of other people’s reasons for change, to check on whether you’ve missed or misrepresented anything, and to inquire about their plans and possible next steps.

动机式访谈还有第四种技巧，通常推荐在谈话结束时或过渡时使用：总结。其目的是解释你对其他人改变原因的理解，检查你是否遗漏或误解了什么，并询问他们的计划和可能的后续步骤。

The objective is not to be a leader or a follower, but a guide. Miller and Rollnick liken it to hiring a tour guide in a foreign country: we don’t want her to order us around, but we don’t want her to follow us around, either. I was so excited that Jeff had decided to share his vision that I didn’t ask any questions about what it was—or how he would present it. I had worked with him to rethink whether and when to give a speech, but not what was in it.

我们的目标不是成为领导者或追随者，而是成为向导。米勒和罗尔尼克把这比作在国外聘请导游：我们不希望她对我们颐指气使，但也不希望她跟着我们。杰夫决定分享他的愿景，我非常激动，以至于没有问他愿景是什么，或者他会如何呈现它。我和他一起重新思考是否以及何时发表演讲，但没有思考演讲的内容。

If I could go back, I’d ask Jeff how he was considering conveying his message and how he thought his team would receive it. A good guide doesn’t stop at helping people change their beliefs or behaviors. Our work isn’t done until we’ve helped them accomplish their goals.

如果可以重来，我会问问杰夫，他是如何考虑传达他的信息，以及他认为他的团队会如何接受。一个好的向导不会止步于帮助人们改变他们的信念或行为。我们的工作只有在帮助他们实现目标后才算完成。

Part of the beauty of motivational interviewing is that it generates more openness in both directions. Listening can encourage others to reconsider their stance toward us, but it also gives us information that can lead us to question our own views about them. If we take the practices of motivational interviewing seriously, we might become the ones who think again.

动机性访谈的魅力之一在于它能增进双方的坦诚。倾听可以鼓励他人重新思考他们对我们的立场，同时也能提供一些信息，让我们反思自己对他们的看法。如果我们认真对待动机性访谈，或许就能成为那些重新思考的人。

It’s not hard to grasp how motivational interviewing can be effective for consultants, doctors, therapists, teachers, and coaches. When people have sought out our assistance—or accepted that it’s our job to help—we’re in a position to earn their trust. Yet we all face situations in which we’re tempted to steer people in the direction we prefer. Parents and mentors often believe they know what’s best for their children and protégés. Salespeople, fundraisers, and entrepreneurs have a vested interest in getting to yes.

动机性访谈对咨询师、医生、治疗师、教师和教练的有效性显而易见。当人们寻求我们的帮助，或接受我们的职责时，我们就能够赢得他们的信任。然而，我们都会面临这样的情况：我们倾向于引导人们朝着自己喜欢的方向发展。父母和导师常常认为他们知道什么对孩子和受训者最有利。销售人员、筹款人和企业家也渴望得到他们的认可。

Motivational interviewing pioneers Miller and Rollnick have long warned that the technique shouldn’t be used manipulatively. Psychologists have found that when people detect an attempt at influence, they have sophisticated defense mechanisms. The moment people feel that we’re trying to persuade them, our behavior takes on a different meaning. A straightforward question is seen as a political tactic, a reflective listening statement comes across as a prosecutor’s maneuvering, an affirmation of their ability to change sounds like a preacher’s proselytizing.

动机访谈的先驱米勒和罗尔尼克早就警告说，这种技巧不应被操纵。心理学家发现，当人们察觉到有人试图施加影响时，他们的防御机制非常复杂。当人们感觉到我们试图说服他们时，我们的行为就具有了不同的意义。一个直截了当的问题会被视为一种政治策略，一个反思性的倾听陈述会被视为检察官的伎俩，对他们改变能力的肯定听起来像是传教士的布道。

Motivational interviewing requires a genuine desire to help people reach their goals. Jeff and I both wanted his company to succeed. Marie-Hélène and Arnaud both wanted Tobie to be healthy. If your goals don’t seem to be aligned, how do you help people change their own minds?

动机访谈需要真诚的愿望，希望帮助人们实现目标。杰夫和我都希望他的公司取得成功。玛丽-海伦和阿诺都希望托比健康。如果你们的目标似乎不一致，你该如何帮助人们改变想法呢？

THE ART OF INFLUENTIAL LISTENING

有影响力的倾听的艺术

Betty Bigombe had already hiked eight miles through the jungle, and there was still no sign of life. She was no stranger to a long walk: growing up in northern Uganda, she walked four miles each way to school. She subsisted on one meal a day in a communal homestead where her uncle had eight wives. Now she had made it all the way to the Ugandan Parliament, and she was undertaking a challenge that none of her colleagues would brave: trying to make peace with a warlord.

贝蒂·比贡贝已经在丛林中徒步了八英里，却依然不见任何生命迹象。她对长途跋涉并不陌生：在乌干达北部长大的她，上学路上每次都要走四英里。她每天只靠一顿饭维持生计，她的叔叔在那里娶了八个老婆。如今，她一路走到了乌干达议会，正在接受一个同事们都不敢挑战的挑战：试图与军阀达成和平。

Joseph Kony was the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army. He and his rebel group would eventually be held responsible for murdering over a hundred thousand people, abducting over thirty thousand children, and displacing over two million Ugandans. In the early 1990s, Betty convinced the Ugandan president to send her in to see if she could stop the violence.

约瑟夫·科尼是圣主抵抗军的领导人。他和他的叛军最终被追究杀害十多万人、绑架三万多名儿童、迫使两百多万乌干达人流离失所的罪行。20世纪90年代初，贝蒂说服乌干达总统派她去看看她能否阻止暴力事件的发生。

When Betty finally made contact with the rebels after months of effort, they were insulted at the prospect of negotiating with a woman. Yet Betty negotiated her way into getting permission to meet Kony himself. Soon he was referring to her as Mummy, and he even agreed to leave the jungle to start peace talks. Although the peace effort didn’t succeed, opening Kony’s mind to conversation was a remarkable accomplishment in itself. * For her efforts to end the violence, Betty was named Uganda’s Woman of the Year. When I spoke to her recently, I asked how she had succeeded in getting through to Kony and his people. The key, she explained, was not persuading or even coaxing, but listening.

经过数月的努力，贝蒂终于与叛军取得了联系。叛军们对与一个女人谈判感到很受侮辱。然而，贝蒂最终通过谈判获得了与科尼本人见面的许可。很快，科尼就称呼她为“妈妈”，甚至同意离开丛林，开启和平谈判。虽然和平努力最终未能成功，但让科尼敞开心扉，进行对话本身就是一项非凡的成就。*贝蒂因其为结束暴力所做的努力，被评为乌干达年度女性。最近我采访她时，问她是如何成功与科尼及其族人沟通的。她解释说，关键不在于说服，甚至不在于哄骗，而在于倾听。

Listening well is more than a matter of talking less. It’s a set of skills in asking and responding. It starts with showing more interest in other people’s interests rather than trying to judge their status or prove our own. We can all get better at asking “ truly curious questions that don’t have the hidden agenda of fixing, saving, advising, convincing or correcting,” journalist Kate Murphy writes, and helping to “facilitate the clear expression of another person’s thoughts.” *

善于倾听不仅仅是少说话，更是一套提问和回应的技巧。首先，我们要对他人的兴趣表现出更多的兴趣，而不是试图评判他们的现状或证明自己的立场。记者凯特·墨菲写道，我们都可以更好地提出“真正充满好奇心的问题，这些问题不带有任何隐藏的目的，例如修复、挽救、建议、说服或纠正”，并帮助“帮助他人清晰地表达自己的想法”。*

When we’re trying to get people to change, that can be a difficult task. Even if we have the best intentions, we can easily slip into the mode of a preacher perched on a pulpit, a prosecutor making a closing argument, or a politician giving a stump speech. We’re all vulnerable to the “righting reflex,” as Miller and Rollnick describe it—the desire to fix problems and offer answers. A skilled motivational interviewer resists the righting reflex—although people want a doctor to fix their broken bones, when it comes to the problems in their heads, they often want sympathy rather than solutions.

当我们试图让人们改变时，这可能是一项艰巨的任务。即使我们怀着最好的意图，也很容易陷入像站在讲坛上的牧师、进行最后陈述的检察官或发表竞选演讲的政客那样的模式。我们都容易受到“扶正反射”的影响，正如米勒和罗尔尼克所描述的那样——渴望解决问题并提供答案。一位熟练的动机访谈者会抵制这种扶正反射——尽管人们希望医生能治好他们的骨折，但当涉及到他们头脑中的问题时，他们往往更希望得到同情而不是解决方案。

That’s what Betty Bigombe set out to provide in Uganda. She started traveling through rural areas to visit camps for internally displaced people. She figured some might have relatives in Joseph Kony’s army and might know something of his whereabouts. Although she hadn’t been trained in motivational interviewing, she intuitively understood the philosophy. At each camp, she announced to people that she wasn’t there to lecture them, but to listen to them.

这正是贝蒂·比贡贝在乌干达着手做的事情。她开始穿梭于乡村，探访国内流离失所者的营地。她推测有些人可能在约瑟夫·科尼的军队里有亲戚，或许知道他的下落。虽然她没有接受过动机访谈的培训，但她本能地理解其中的哲理。在每个营地，她都会告诉人们，她来这里不是要对他们说教，而是要倾听他们。

Her curiosity and confident humility caught the Ugandans by surprise. Other peacemakers had come in ordering them to stop fighting. They had preached about their own plans for conflict resolution and prosecuted the past efforts that failed. Now Betty, a politician by profession, wasn’t telling them what to do. She just sat patiently for hours in front of a bonfire, taking notes and chiming in from time to time to ask questions. “If you want to call me names, feel free to do so,” she said. “If you want me to leave, I will.”

她的好奇心和自信谦逊让乌干达人措手不及。其他和平使者曾来命令他们停止战斗。他们曾宣扬自己的冲突解决计划，并追究过去失败的努力。现在，贝蒂，一位职业政治家，并没有告诉他们该怎么做。她只是耐心地坐在篝火前几个小时，做着笔记，不时插嘴提问。“如果你们想骂我，尽管说，”她说。“如果你们想让我走，我就走。”

To demonstrate her commitment to peace, Betty stayed in the camps even though they lacked sufficient food and proper sanitation. She invited people to air their grievances and suggest remedial measures to be taken. They told her that it was rare and refreshing for an outsider to give them the opportunity to share their views. She empowered them to generate their own solutions, which gave them a sense of ownership. They ended up calling her Megu, which translates literally to “mother” and is also a term of endearment for elders. Bestowing this honorific was particularly striking since Betty was representing the government—which was seen as the oppressor in many of the camps. It wasn’t long before people were offering to introduce her to coordinators and commanders in Joseph Kony’s guerrilla army. As Betty muses, “Even the devil appreciates being listened to.”

为了展现她对和平的承诺，贝蒂即使食物匮乏、卫生条件欠佳，也依然留在营地里。她邀请人们表达自己的不满，并提出补救措施的建议。人们告诉她，外来者能给予他们分享观点的机会，这很罕见，也令人耳目一新。她鼓励他们自己提出解决方案，这让他们有了归属感。他们最终称她为“Megu”，字面意思是“母亲”，也是对长辈的爱称。授予她这个尊称尤为引人注目，因为贝蒂代表的是政府——而政府在许多营地里被视为压迫者。不久之后，人们就开始主动把她介绍给约瑟夫·科尼游击队的协调员和指挥官。正如贝蒂沉思的话语：“即使是魔鬼也喜欢被倾听。”

In a series of experiments, interacting with an empathetic, nonjudgmental, attentive listener made people less anxious and defensive. They felt less pressure to avoid contradictions in their thinking, which encouraged them to explore their opinions more deeply, recognize more nuances in them, and share them more openly. These benefits of listening aren’t limited to one-on-one interactions—they can also emerge in groups. In experiments across government organizations, tech companies, and schools, people’s attitudes became more complex and less extreme after they sat in a listening circle, where one person at a time held a talking stick and everyone else listened attentively. Psychologists recommend practicing this skill by sitting down with people whom we sometimes have a hard time understanding. The idea is to tell them that we’re working on being better listeners, we’d like to hear their thoughts, and we’ll listen for a few minutes before responding.

在一系列实验中，与富有同理心、不带评判、专注的倾听者互动，人们的焦虑和防御心理会减少。他们感受到的避免思维矛盾的压力减轻了，这促使他们更深入地探索自己的观点，发现其中的更多细微差别，并更坦诚地分享。倾听的益处不仅限于一对一互动，在群体互动中也能体现出来。在政府机构、科技公司和学校开展的实验中，人们围坐在一个倾听圈里，每次由一个人拿着发言棒，其他人则聚精会神地倾听，之后他们的态度变得更加复杂，也更加平和。心理学家建议，练习这项技能的方法，是与那些我们有时难以理解的人坐下来谈谈。这样做的目的是告诉他们，我们正在努力成为更好的倾听者，我们乐于倾听他们的想法，并且我们会先听几分钟再做出回应。

Many communicators try to make themselves look smart. Great listeners are more interested in making their audiences feel smart. They help people approach their own views with more humility, doubt, and curiosity. When people have a chance to express themselves out loud, they often discover new thoughts. As the writer E. M. Forster put it, “ How can I tell what I think till I see what I say?” That understanding made Forster an unusually dedicated listener. In the words of one biographer, “To speak with him was to be seduced by an inverse charisma, a sense of being listened to with such intensity that you had to be your most honest, sharpest, and best self.”

许多沟通者试图让自己看起来聪明。优秀的倾听者更注重让听众感受到自己的聪明。他们帮助人们以更谦逊、更怀疑和更好奇的态度看待自己的观点。当人们有机会大声表达自己时，往往会发现新的想法。正如作家E·M·福斯特所说：“在我还没看到自己说了什么之前，我怎么能知道自己在想什么呢？”这种理解使福斯特成为了一位异常专注的倾听者。正如一位传记作者所说：“与他交谈就像被一种反其道而行之的魅力所吸引，那种被如此认真倾听的感觉，让你不得不展现出最诚实、最敏锐、最好的自我。”

Inverse charisma. What a wonderful turn of phrase to capture the magnetic quality of a great listener. Think about how rare that kind of listening is. Among managers rated as the worst listeners by their employees, 94 percent of them evaluated themselves as good or very good listeners. Dunning and Kruger might have something to say about that. In one poll, a third of women said their pets were better listeners than their partners. Maybe it wasn’t just my kids who wanted a cat. It’s common for doctors to interrupt their patients within 11 seconds, even though patients may need only 29 seconds to describe their symptoms. In Quebec, however, Marie-Hélène experienced something very different.

逆向魅力。多么精彩的措辞，捕捉到优秀倾听者的魅力。想想看，这种倾听是多么罕见。在被员工评为倾听能力最差的经理中，94%的人认为自己是优秀或非常优秀的倾听者。邓宁和克鲁格或许对此有所解释。一项民意调查显示，三分之一的女性表示，她们的宠物比伴侣更善于倾听。或许，想要养猫的不仅仅是我的孩子们。医生通常会在11秒内打断病人，即使病人可能只需要29秒来描述他们的症状。然而，在魁北克，玛丽-海伦的经历却截然不同。

When Marie-Hélène explained that she was concerned about autism and the effects of administering multiple vaccines simultaneously, Arnaud didn’t bombard her with a barrage of scientific facts. He asked what her sources were. Like many parents, she said she had read about vaccines on the internet but didn’t remember where. He agreed that in a sea of conflicting claims, it’s difficult to gain a clear sense of whether immunization is safe.

当玛丽-海伦解释说她担心自闭症以及同时接种多种疫苗的影响时，阿诺并没有用一连串的科学事实来轰炸她。他问她信息来源是什么。像许多家长一样，她说她在网上读到过关于疫苗的信息，但不记得在哪里找到的了。他同意，在各种相互矛盾的说法中，很难清楚地判断免疫接种是否安全。

Eventually, when he understood Marie-Hélène’s beliefs, Arnaud asked if he could share some information about vaccines based on his own expertise. “I started a dialogue,” he told me. “The aim was to build a trusting relationship. If you present information without permission, no one will listen to you.” Arnaud was able to address her fears and misconceptions by explaining that the measles vaccine is a weakened live virus, so the symptoms are typically minimal, and there’s no evidence that it increases autism or other syndromes. He wasn’t delivering a lecture; he was engaging in a discussion. Marie-Hélène’s questions guided the evidence he shared, and they reconstructed her knowledge together. Every step of the way, Arnaud avoided putting pressure on her. Even after talking through the science, he concluded the conversation by telling her he would let her think about it, affirming her freedom to make up her own mind.

最终，当他理解了玛丽-海伦的想法后，阿尔诺询问他能否根据自己的专业知识分享一些疫苗信息。“我开启了一段对话，”他告诉我。“目的是建立一种信任关系。如果你未经允许就提供信息，没人会听你的。”阿尔诺解释说，麻疹疫苗是一种减毒活病毒，因此症状通常很轻微，而且没有证据表明它会增加自闭症或其他综合症的风险，从而化解了玛丽-海伦的恐惧和误解。他不是在说教，而是在参与讨论。玛丽-海伦的问题引导着他分享的证据，他们共同重建了玛丽-海伦的知识。在整个过程中，阿尔诺都避免给她施加压力。即使在讲完科学原理之后，他仍然在谈话结束时告诉她，他会让她自己思考，并肯定她拥有自主决定的自由。

In 2020, during the worst snowstorm of the winter, a married couple drove an hour and a half to visit Arnaud. They hadn’t vaccinated any of their children, but after forty-five minutes of discussion with him, they decided to vaccinate all four of them. The couple lived in Marie-Hélène’s village, and seeing other children vaccinated there made the mother curious enough to seek more information.

2020年，在冬季最严重的一场暴风雪中，一对夫妇开车一个半小时去看望阿尔诺。他们之前没有给任何孩子接种过疫苗，但经过45分钟的讨论后，他们决定给四个孩子都接种疫苗。这对夫妇住在玛丽-海伦的村子里，看到那里其他孩子也接种了疫苗，这位母亲感到好奇，于是想了解更多信息。

The power of listening doesn’t lie just in giving people the space to reflect on their views. It’s a display of respect and an expression of care. When Arnaud took the time to understand Marie-Hélène’s concerns instead of dismissing them, he was showing a sincere interest in her well-being and that of her son. When Betty Bigombe stayed with displaced Ugandans in their camps and asked them to air their grievances, she was proving that what they had to say mattered to her. Listening is a way of offering others our scarcest, most precious gift: our attention. Once we’ve demonstrated that we care about them and their goals, they’re more willing to listen to us.

倾听的力量不仅仅在于给予人们反思自身观点的空间，它更是尊重和关怀的体现。当阿诺花时间理解玛丽-海伦的担忧而非置之不理时，他展现出了对她和她儿子福祉的真诚关怀。当贝蒂·比贡贝在乌干达难民营中陪伴他们，并请他们倾诉苦恼时，她也证明了他们的声音对她来说很重要。倾听是我们给予他人最珍贵、最稀缺的礼物：关注。一旦我们展现出对他人和他们目标的关心，他们就会更愿意倾听我们。

If we can convince a mother to vaccinate her vulnerable children—or a warlord to consider peace talks—it’s easy to conclude that the ends justify whatever means are necessary. But it’s worth remembering that the means are a measure of our character. When we succeed in changing someone’s mind, we shouldn’t only ask whether we’re proud of what we’ve achieved. We should also ask whether we’re proud of how we’ve achieved it.

如果我们能说服一位母亲为她脆弱的孩子接种疫苗，或者说服一位军阀考虑和谈，我们很容易得出这样的结论：为了达到目的，不择手段是正当的。但值得记住的是，手段是衡量我们品格的标准。当我们成功改变某人的想法时，我们不应该只扪心自问，我们是否为我们所取得的成就感到自豪。我们也应该扪心自问，我们是否为我们取得成就的方式感到自豪。

PART III

第三部分

Collective Rethinking

集体反思

Creating Communities of Lifelong Learners

创建终身学习者社区

CHAPTER 8 第八章

Charged Conversations

充满激情的对话

Depolarizing Our Divided Discussions

消除分歧

When conflict is cliché, complexity is breaking news.

—Amanda Ripley

当冲突成为陈词滥调时，复杂性就成了突发新闻。——阿曼达·里普利

Eager to have a jaw-clenching, emotionally fraught argument about abortion? How about immigration, the death penalty, or climate change? If you think you can handle it, head for the second floor of a brick building on the Columbia University campus in New York. It’s the home of the Difficult Conversations Lab.

想就堕胎问题展开一场令人神经紧绷、情绪激动的辩论吗？移民、死刑或气候变化呢？如果你觉得自己能应付，那就去纽约哥伦比亚大学一栋砖砌建筑的二楼吧。这里就是“高难度对话实验室”的所在地。

If you’re brave enough to visit, you’ll be matched up with a stranger who strongly disagrees with your views on a controversial topic. You’ll be given just twenty minutes to discuss the issue, and then you’ll both have to decide whether you’ve aligned enough to write and sign a joint statement on your shared views around abortion laws. If you’re able to do so—no small feat—your statement will be posted on a public forum.

如果你足够勇敢，你将被安排与一位陌生人配对，他强烈反对你对一个争议性话题的看法。你们只有20分钟的时间来讨论这个问题，然后双方需要决定是否能够就堕胎法的共同观点撰写并签署一份联合声明。如果你能做到这一点——这可不是一件容易的事——你的声明将被发布在公共论坛上。

For two decades, the psychologist who runs the lab, Peter T. Coleman, has been bringing people together to talk about polarizing issues. His mission is to reverse-engineer the successful conversations and then experiment with recipes to make more of them.

二十年来，负责该实验室的心理学家彼得·T·科尔曼（Peter T. Coleman）一直致力于召集人们，探讨一些两极分化的问题。他的使命是逆向工程，挖掘成功的对话，然后尝试各种方法，让对话更加有效。

To put you in the right mindset before you begin your conversation about abortion, Peter gives you and the stranger a news article about another divisive issue: gun control. What you don’t know is that there are different versions of the gun control article, and which one you read is going to have a major impact on whether you land on the same page about abortion.

为了让你在开始谈论堕胎之前保持正确的心态，彼得给你和陌生人提供了一篇关于另一个争议性话题的新闻文章：枪支管制。你不知道的是，关于枪支管制的文章有多个版本，而你阅读哪个版本将对你们在堕胎问题上是否达成共识产生重大影响。

If the gun control article covers both sides of the issue, making a balanced case for both gun rights and gun legislation, you and your adversary have a decent chance at reaching consensus on abortion. In one of Peter’s experiments, after reading a “both-sides” article, 46 percent of pairs were able to find enough common ground to draft and sign a statement together. That’s a remarkable result.

如果枪支管制文章涵盖了问题的正反两面，为枪支权利和枪支立法提供了平衡的论据，你和你的对手就有很大机会就堕胎问题达成共识。在彼得的一项实验中，在阅读了一篇“正反两面”的文章后，46%的参与者找到了足够的共同点，共同起草并签署了声明。这是一个了不起的结果。

But Peter went on to do something far more impressive. He randomly assigned some pairs to read another version of the same article, which led 100 percent of them to generate and sign a joint statement about abortion laws.

但彼得接下来做了一件更令人印象深刻的事情。他随机安排几对学生阅读同一篇文章的另一个版本，结果所有学生都撰写并签署了一份关于堕胎法的联合声明。

That version of the article featured the same information but presented it differently. Instead of describing the issue as a black-and-white disagreement between two sides, the article framed the debate as a complex problem with many shades of gray, representing a number of different viewpoints.

文章的那个版本包含了相同的信息，但表达方式不同。文章没有将这个问题描述为双方之间非黑即白的分歧，而是将这场争论描述为一个复杂的问题，其中存在许多灰色地带，代表着许多不同的观点。

At the turn of the last century, the great hope for the internet was that it would expose us to different views. But as the web welcomed a few billion fresh voices and vantage points into the conversation, it also became a weapon of misinformation and disinformation. By the 2016 elections, as the problem of political polarization became more extreme and more visible, the solution seemed obvious to me. We needed to burst filter bubbles in our news feeds and shatter echo chambers in our networks. If we could just show people the other side of an issue, they would open their minds and become more informed. Peter’s research challenges that assumption.

上世纪初，人们对互联网寄予厚望，希望它能让我们接触到不同的观点。但随着网络为对话带来了数十亿新鲜的声音和视角，它也成为了传播错误信息和虚假信息的武器。到了2016年大选，随着政治两极分化问题变得更加极端和明显，解决方案在我看来显而易见。我们需要打破新闻推送中的过滤泡沫，打破网络中的回音室效应。如果我们能向人们展示问题的另一面，他们就会敞开心扉，获得更多的信息。彼得的研究挑战了这一假设。

We now know that where complicated issues are concerned, seeing the opinions of the other side is not enough. Social media platforms have exposed us to them, but they haven’t changed our minds. Knowing another side exists isn’t sufficient to leave preachers doubting whether they’re on the right side of morality, prosecutors questioning whether they’re on the right side of the case, or politicians wondering whether they’re on the right side of history. Hearing an opposing opinion doesn’t necessarily motivate you to rethink your own stance; it makes it easier for you to stick to your guns (or your gun bans). Presenting two extremes isn’t the solution; it’s part of the polarization problem.

我们现在知道，在涉及复杂问题时，仅仅了解另一方的观点是不够的。社交媒体平台让我们接触到了这些观点，但它们并没有改变我们的想法。仅仅知道另一方的存在，并不足以让传教士怀疑自己是否站在道德的正确一边，检察官质疑自己是否站在案件的正确一边，政客们也怀疑自己是否站在历史的正确一边。听到反对意见并不一定能促使你重新思考自己的立场；它会让你更容易坚持自己的立场（或枪支禁令）。呈现两个极端并非解决方案；它是两极分化问题的一部分。

Psychologists have a name for this: binary bias. It’s a basic human tendency to seek clarity and closure by simplifying a complex continuum into two categories. To paraphrase the humorist Robert Benchley, there are two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t.

心理学家对此有个名字：二元偏见。这是人类的一种基本倾向，即为了寻求清晰和圆满，将复杂的连续体简化为两类。套用幽默作家罗伯特·本奇利的话来说，人分为两种：一种人把世界划分为两种人，另一种人则不这么做。

An antidote to this proclivity is complexifying: showcasing the range of perspectives on a given topic. We might believe we’re making progress by discussing hot-button issues as two sides of a coin, but people are actually more inclined to think again if we present these topics through the many lenses of a prism. To borrow a phrase from Walt Whitman, it takes a multitude of views to help people realize that they too contain multitudes.

克服这种倾向的良方是将观点复杂化：展示特定主题的多种视角。我们或许认为，将热点问题当作硬币的两面来讨论会取得进展，但如果我们透过棱镜的多重视角来呈现这些话题，人们实际上更倾向于重新思考。借用沃尔特·惠特曼的一句话，需要多种视角才能让人们意识到，他们自身也包含着多种视角。

A dose of complexity can disrupt overconfidence cycles and spur rethinking cycles. It gives us more humility about our knowledge and more doubts about our opinions, and it can make us curious enough to discover information we were lacking. In Peter’s experiment, all it took was framing gun control not as an issue with only two extreme positions but rather as one involving many interrelated dilemmas. As journalist Amanda Ripley describes it, the gun control article “ read less like a lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes.” Those field notes were enough to help pro-life and pro-choice advocates find some areas of agreement on abortion in only twenty minutes.

适度的复杂性可以打破过度自信的循环，并激发反思的循环。它让我们对自己的知识更加谦逊，对自己的观点更加质疑，也能激发我们足够的好奇心，去发现我们缺乏的信息。在彼得的实验中，只需要将枪支管制问题定义为一个包含许多相互关联困境的问题，而不是两个极端立场的问题。正如记者阿曼达·里普利所描述的，那篇关于枪支管制的文章“读起来不像律师的开场陈述，更像是人类学家的实地笔记”。这些实地笔记足以帮助反堕胎人士和支持堕胎权人士在短短二十分钟内就堕胎问题找到一些共识。

The article didn’t just leave people open to rethinking their views on abortion; they also reconsidered their positions on other divisive issues like affirmative action and the death penalty. * If people read the binary version of the article, they defended their own perspective more often than they showed an interest in their opponent’s. If they read the complexified version, they made about twice as many comments about common ground as about their own views. They asserted fewer opinions and asked more questions. At the end of the conversation, they generated more sophisticated, higher-quality position statements—and both parties came away more satisfied.

这篇文章不仅让人们重新思考了自己对堕胎的看法，也让人们重新审视了自己在其他争议性议题（例如平权法案和死刑）上的立场。* 如果人们阅读的是二元化版本的文章，他们捍卫自身观点的次数会高于对对手观点的兴趣。如果阅读的是复杂化版本的文章，他们对共同点的评论次数大约是对自己观点的评论次数的两倍。他们发表意见的次数减少了，提问的次数增加了。在对话结束时，他们形成了更成熟、更高质量的立场陈述——双方都对对话更加满意。

For a long time, I struggled with how to handle politics in this book. I don’t have any silver bullets or simple bridges across a widening gulf. I don’t really even believe in political parties. As an organizational psychologist, I want to vet candidates’ leadership skills before I worry about their policy positions. As a citizen, I believe it’s my responsibility to form an independent opinion on each issue . Eventually, I decided that the best way to stay above the fray was to explore the moments that affect us all as individuals: the charged conversations we have in person and online.

很长一段时间以来，我都在苦苦思索如何在这本书中处理政治问题。我没有任何灵丹妙药，也没有任何简单的桥梁可以跨越日益扩大的鸿沟。我甚至不相信政党。作为一名组织心理学家，我希望在考虑候选人的政策立场之前，先考察他们的领导能力。作为一名公民，我认为我有责任对每个问题形成独立的观点。最终，我决定，置身事外的最佳方式是探索那些影响我们每个人的时刻：我们在线上和线上进行的激烈对话。

Resisting the impulse to simplify is a step toward becoming more argument literate. Doing so has profound implications for how we communicate about polarizing issues. In the traditional media, it can help journalists open people’s minds to uncomfortable facts. On social media, it can help all of us have more productive Twitter tiffs and Facebook fights. At family gatherings, it might not land you on the same page as your least favorite uncle, but it could very well prevent a seemingly innocent conversation from exploding into an emotional inferno. And in discussions of policies that affect all of our lives, it might bring us better, more practical solutions sooner. That’s what this section of the book is about: applying rethinking to different parts of our lives, so that we can keep learning at every stage of our lives.

抵制简化的冲动是迈向更精通论证的一步。这样做对于我们如何就两极分化的问题进行沟通有着深远的影响。在传统媒体中，它可以帮助记者打开人们的思路，让他们接受令人不安的事实。在社交媒体上，它可以帮助我们所有人在推特上和脸书上进行更有意义的争吵。在家庭聚会上，它或许无法让你和你最不喜欢的叔叔达成共识，但它很可能能防止一场看似无辜的谈话爆发成情绪的风暴。在讨论影响我们所有人生活的政策时，它或许能让我们更快地找到更好、更实用的解决方案。这就是本书这一部分的主题：将反思应用于我们生活的不同方面，以便我们在人生的每个阶段都能不断学习。

*Non Sequitur* © 2016 Wiley Ink, Inc. Dist. by ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION . Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Non Sequitur © 2016 Wiley Ink, Inc. 版权归 ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION 所有。经授权转载。保留所有权利。

SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

一些难以忽视的真相

In 2006, Al Gore starred in a blockbuster film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth . It won the Academy Award for Best Documentary and spawned a wave of activism, motivating businesses to go green and governments to pass legislation and sign landmark agreements to protect the planet. History teaches us that it sometimes takes a combination of preaching, prosecuting, and politicking to fuel that kind of dramatic swing.

2006年，阿尔·戈尔主演了一部关于气候变化的轰动性影片《难以忽视的真相》。该片荣获奥斯卡最佳纪录片奖，并引发了一波环保行动，激励企业走向绿色环保，推动各国政府通过立法并签署具有里程碑意义的协议来保护地球。历史告诉我们，有时需要宣传、行动和政治手段的结合，才能推动这种戏剧性的转变。

Yet by 2018, only 59 percent of Americans saw climate change as a major threat—and 16 percent believed it wasn’t a threat at all. Across many countries in Western Europe and Southeast Asia, higher percentages of the populations had opened their minds to the evidence that climate change is a dire problem. In the past decade in the United States, beliefs about climate change have hardly budged.

然而，到2018年，只有59%的美国人认为气候变化是一个重大威胁，16%的人认为它根本不构成威胁。在西欧和东南亚的许多国家，有更高比例的民众已经接受了气候变化是一个严峻问题的证据。过去十年，美国民众对气候变化的认知几乎没有改变。

This thorny issue is a natural place to explore how we can bring more complexity into our conversations. Fundamentally, that involves drawing attention to the nuances that often get overlooked. It starts with seeking and spotlighting shades of gray.

这个棘手的问题自然值得我们探讨如何在对话中引入更多复杂性。从根本上说，这需要我们关注那些经常被忽视的细微之处。首先，我们要寻找并聚焦灰色地带。

A fundamental lesson of desirability bias is that our beliefs are shaped by our motivations. What we believe depends on what we want to believe. Emotionally, it can be unsettling for anyone to admit that all life as we know it might be in danger, but Americans have some additional reasons to be dubious about climate change. Politically, climate change has been branded in the United States as a liberal issue; in some conservative circles, merely acknowledging the fact that it might exist puts people on a fast track to exile. There’s evidence that higher levels of education predict heightened concern about climate change among Democrats but dampened concern among Republicans. Economically, we remain confident that America will be more resilient in response to a changing climate than most of the world, and we’re reluctant to sacrifice our current ways of achieving prosperity. These deep-seated beliefs are hard to change.

合意偏差的一个根本教训是，我们的信念是由动机塑造的。我们相信什么取决于我们想要相信什么。从情感上讲，任何人承认我们所知的所有生命都可能处于危险之中都会令人不安，但美国人还有其他理由对气候变化持怀疑态度。从政治上讲，气候变化在美国一直被贴上自由主义议题的标签；在某些保守派圈子里，仅仅承认气候变化可能存在的事实就会让人们迅速走向流亡。有证据表明，较高的教育水平预示着民主党人对气候变化的担忧会加剧，而共和党人则对此有所减弱。从经济上讲，我们仍然相信，美国在应对气候变化方面将比世界上大多数国家更具韧性，我们也不愿牺牲目前实现繁荣的方式。这些根深蒂固的信念很难改变。

As a psychologist, I want to zoom in on another factor. It’s one we can all control: the way we communicate about climate change. Many people believe that preaching with passion and conviction is necessary for persuasion. A clear example is Al Gore. When he narrowly lost the U.S. presidential election in 2000, one of the knocks against him was his energy—or lack thereof. People called him dry. Boring. Robotic. Fast-forward a few years: his film was riveting and his own platform skills had evolved dramatically. In 2016, when I watched Gore speak in the red circle at TED, his language was vivid, his voice pulsated with emotion, and his passion literally dripped off him in the form of sweat. If a robot was ever controlling his brain, it short-circuited and left the human in charge. “ Some still doubt that we have the will to act,” he boomed, “but I say the will to act is itself a renewable resource.” The audience erupted in a standing ovation, and afterward he was called the Elvis of TED. If it’s not his communication style that’s failing to reach people, what is?

作为一名心理学家，我想深入探讨另一个因素。这是我们都能掌控的：我们谈论气候变化的方式。许多人认为，充满激情和信念的布道对于说服他人至关重要。阿尔·戈尔就是一个明显的例子。2000年，他在美国总统大选中以微弱劣势落败，当时的一大败笔就是他的精力——或者说是缺乏精力。人们说他枯燥乏味、乏味、机械。几年过去了：他的影片引人入胜，他自己的演讲技巧也得到了显著提升。2016年，当我在TED大会红圈观看戈尔演讲时，他的语言生动活泼，声音充满情感，他的热情几乎以汗水的形式流淌下来。如果一个机器人真的控制了他的大脑，它就会短路，让人类掌控一切。“有些人仍然怀疑我们是否有行动的意愿，”他大声说道，“但我认为，行动的意愿本身就是一种可再生资源。”全场观众爆发出热烈的起立鼓掌，之后他被称为TED界的猫王。如果不是他的沟通风格无法打动人心，那又是什么呢？

At TED, Gore was preaching to the choir: his audience was heavily progressive. For audiences with more varied beliefs, his language hasn’t always resonated. In An Inconvenient Truth , Gore contrasted the “truth” with claims made by “so-called skeptics.” In a 2010 op-ed, he contrasted scientists with “climate deniers.”

在TED演讲中，戈尔的布道对象是一群一群进步人士。对于信仰更为多元的听众来说，他的语言并不总是能引起共鸣。在《难以忽视的真相》中，戈尔将“真相”与“所谓的怀疑论者”的主张进行了对比。在2010年的一篇专栏文章中，他将科学家与“气候否认者”进行了对比。

This is binary bias in action. It presumes that the world is divided into two sides: believers and nonbelievers. Only one side can be right, because there is only one truth. I don’t blame Al Gore for taking that position; he was presenting rigorous data and representing the consensus of the scientific community. Because he was a recovering politician, seeing two sides to an issue must have been second nature. But when the only available options are black and white, it’s natural to slip into a mentality of us versus them and to focus on the sides over the science. For those on the fence, when forced to choose a side, the emotional, political, and economic pressures tilt in favor of disengaging or dismissing the problem.

这是二元偏见的体现。它预设世界被划分为两派：信徒和非信徒。只有一方可能正确，因为真理只有一个。我并不责怪阿尔·戈尔持这种立场；他当时提供的是严谨的数据，代表了科学界的共识。由于他当时正处于政治转型期，所以能够看到问题的两面性想必是他的第二天性。但当只有黑白两种选择时，人们很自然地会陷入“我”与“他”的对立心态，关注双方立场而非科学。对于那些摇摆不定的人来说，当被迫选择立场时，情感、政治和经济压力往往会倾向于回避或忽略问题。

To overcome binary bias, a good starting point is to become aware of the range of perspectives across a given spectrum. Polls suggest that on climate change, there are at least six camps of thought. Believers represent more than half of Americans, but some are concerned while others are alarmed. The so-called nonbelievers actually range from cautious to disengaged to doubtful to dismissive.

要克服二元偏见，一个好的起点是了解特定范围内的各种观点。民意调查显示，在气候变化问题上，至少存在六个思想阵营。超过一半的美国人相信气候变化，但有些人对此感到担忧，而另一些人则感到担忧。所谓的非信徒，实际上态度各异，从谨慎到漠不关心，从怀疑到不屑一顾。

It’s especially important to distinguish skeptics from deniers. Skeptics have a healthy scientific stance: They don’t believe everything they see, hear, or read. They ask critical questions and update their thinking as they gain access to new information. Deniers are in the dismissive camp, locked in preacher, prosecutor, or politician mode: They don’t believe anything that comes from the other side. They ignore or twist facts to support their predetermined conclusions. As the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry put it in a plea to the media, skepticism is “foundational to the scientific method,” whereas denial is “the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.” *

区分怀疑论者和否认论者尤为重要。怀疑论者拥有健康的科学立场：他们并非相信所有看到、听到或读到的东西。他们会提出批判性问题，并在获得新信息时更新思维。否认论者则属于轻蔑阵营，深陷传教士、检察官或政客的模式：他们不相信任何来自另一方的言论。他们会忽略或歪曲事实，以支持自己预先确定的结论。正如怀疑论调查委员会在致媒体的呼吁中所说，怀疑论是“科学方法的基础”，而否认论则是“未经客观考量就先验地拒绝观点”。*

The complexity of this spectrum of beliefs is often missing from coverage of climate change. Although no more than 10 percent of Americans are dismissive of climate change, it’s these rare deniers who get the most press. In an analysis of some hundred thousand media articles on climate change between 2000 and 2016, prominent climate contrarians received disproportionate coverage: they were featured 49 percent more often than expert scientists. As a result, people end up overestimating how common denial is—which in turn makes them more hesitant to advocate for policies that protect the environment. When the middle of the spectrum is invisible, the majority’s will to act vanishes with it. If other people aren’t going to do anything about it, why should I bother? When they become aware of just how many people are concerned about climate change, they’re more prepared to do something about it.

气候变化报道往往忽略了这种观点的复杂性。尽管只有不到10%的美国人对气候变化不屑一顾，但正是这些少数的否认者获得了最多的媒体关注。一项对2000年至2016年间数十万篇关于气候变化的媒体文章的分析发现，著名的气候反对者获得的报道比例过高：他们被报道的频率比专家科学家高出49%。结果，人们最终高估了否认的普遍程度——这反过来又使他们在倡导保护环境的政策时更加犹豫。当中间那部分观点被忽视时，大多数人采取行动的意愿也会随之消失。如果其他人都不打算采取行动，我又何必费心呢？当他们意识到有多少人关心气候变化时，他们就会更愿意采取行动。

As consumers of information, we have a role to play in embracing a more nuanced point of view. When we’re reading, listening, or watching, we can learn to recognize complexity as a signal of credibility. We can favor content and sources that present many sides of an issue rather than just one or two. When we come across simplifying headlines, we can fight our tendency to accept binaries by asking what additional perspectives are missing between the extremes.

作为信息的消费者，我们有责任去接受更细致入微的观点。在阅读、聆听或观看时，我们可以学会将复杂性视为可信度的信号。我们可以青睐那些展现问题多面性而非仅仅一两面的内容和来源。当我们遇到简化的标题时，我们可以通过思考在极端观点之间还缺少哪些额外的视角来克服我们接受二元论的倾向。

This applies when we’re the ones producing and communicating information, too. New research suggests that when journalists acknowledge the uncertainties around facts on complex issues like climate change and immigration, it doesn’t undermine their readers’ trust. And multiple experiments have shown that when experts express doubt, they become more persuasive. When someone knowledgeable admits uncertainty, it surprises people, and they end up paying more attention to the substance of the argument.

当我们自己生产和传播信息时，这一点也同样适用。新的研究表明，当记者承认气候变化和移民等复杂问题上事实的不确定性时，并不会损害读者的信任。多项实验表明，当专家表达质疑时，他们的说服力会更强。当知识渊博的人承认不确定性时，人们会感到惊讶，最终会更加关注论点的实质。

Of course, a potential challenge of nuance is that it doesn’t seem to go viral. Attention spans are short: we have only a few seconds to capture eyeballs with a catchy headline. It’s true that complexity doesn’t always make for good sound bites, but it does seed great conversations. And some journalists have found clever ways to capture it in few words.

当然，细微差别的潜在挑战在于，它似乎难以像病毒式传播一样传播开来。人的注意力持续时间很短：我们只有几秒钟的时间来用一个吸引人的标题吸引眼球。诚然，复杂性并不总是能成为好的新闻片段，但它确实能引发精彩的对话。一些记者找到了巧妙的方法，用寥寥数语就能捕捉到它。

A few years ago, the media reported on a study of the cognitive consequences of coffee consumption. Although their headlines were drawn from the same data, some newspapers praised the benefits of coffee, while other outlets warned about the costs:

几年前，媒体报道了一项关于咖啡消费对认知影响的研究。尽管标题来自相同的数据，但一些报纸赞扬了咖啡的好处，而另一些媒体则警告其危害：

The actual study showed that older adults who drank a daily cup or two of coffee had a lower risk of mild cognitive impairment, relative to abstainers, occasional consumers, and heavier consumers. If they increased their consumption by another cup or more per day, they had a higher risk than those who stayed at or below a single cup a day. Each of the one-sided headlines took seven to twelve words to mislead the reader about the effects of drinking coffee. A more accurate headline needed just twelve words to serve up a jolt of instant complexity:

实际研究表明，每天喝一两杯咖啡的老年人，相对于不喝咖啡、偶尔喝咖啡和重度喝咖啡的老年人，患轻度认知障碍的风险较低。如果他们每天多喝一杯或更多，风险就会比每天只喝一杯或一杯以下的老年人更高。每个片面性的标题都需要七到十二个字来误导读者，让他们误以为喝咖啡的危害。而更准确的标题只需要十二个字就能带来瞬间的复杂性：

Imagine if even this kind of minimal nod to complexity appeared in articles on climate change. Scientists overwhelmingly agree about its human causes, but even they have a range of views on the actual effects—and the potential remedies. It’s possible to be alarmed about the situation while recognizing the variety of ways to improve it. *

想象一下，如果关于气候变化的文章中出现哪怕是这种对复杂性的最低限度的认可，会是什么样。科学家们绝大多数都认同气候变化是人为造成的，但即使是他们，对其实际影响以及潜在的补救措施也各有不同的看法。我们或许会对现状感到担忧，但同时也认识到改善现状的方法多种多样。*

Psychologists find that people will ignore or even deny the existence of a problem if they’re not fond of the solution. Liberals were more dismissive of the issue of intruder violence when they read an argument that strict gun control laws could make it difficult for homeowners to protect themselves. Conservatives were more receptive to climate science when they read about a green technology policy proposal than about an emissions restriction proposal.

心理学家发现，如果人们不喜欢解决方案，他们就会忽视甚至否认问题的存在。当自由主义者读到“严格的枪支管制法可能会使房主难以自保”的论点时，他们对入侵者暴力问题更加不屑一顾。而当保守主义者读到绿色技术政策提案时，他们更容易接受气候科学，而不是排放限制提案。

Featuring shades of gray in discussions of solutions can help to shift attention from why climate change is a problem to how we can do something about it. As we’ve seen from the evidence on the illusion of explanatory depth, asking “how” tends to reduce polarization, setting the stage for more constructive conversations about action. Here are examples of headlines in which writers have hinted at the complexity of the solutions:

在讨论解决方案时，引入灰色地带有助于将注意力从气候变化为何是个问题转移到我们如何才能应对它。正如我们从解释深度错觉的证据中看到的那样，询问“如何”往往会减少两极分化，为更具建设性的行动对话奠定基础。以下是一些标题的例子，作者在其中暗示了解决方案的复杂性：

I WORK IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT. I DON’T CARE IF YOU RECYCLE

我从事环保运动。我不关心你是否回收利用

CAN PLANTING A TRILLION TREES STOP CLIMATE CHANGE? SCIENTISTS SAY IT’S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED

种植一万亿棵树就能阻止气候变化吗？科学家称这远比这复杂得多

SOME CAVEATS AND CONTINGENCIES

一些警告和意外情况

If you want to get better at conveying complexity, it’s worth taking a close look at how scientists communicate. One key step is to include caveats. It’s rare that a single study or even a series of studies is conclusive. Researchers typically feature multiple paragraphs about the limitations of each study in their articles. We see them less as holes in our work and more as portholes to future discoveries. When we share the findings with nonscientists, though, we sometimes gloss over these caveats.

如果你想更好地表达复杂性，值得仔细观察科学家的沟通方式。一个关键步骤是加入一些注意事项。很少有一项研究甚至一系列研究能够得出结论。研究人员通常会在文章中用多段文字阐述每项研究的局限性。我们并不认为这些局限性是我们工作中的漏洞，而是未来发现的舷窗。然而，当我们与非科学家分享研究结果时，我们有时会忽略这些注意事项。

That’s a mistake, according to recent research. In a series of experiments, psychologists demonstrated that when news reports about science included caveats, they succeeded in capturing readers’ interest and keeping their minds open. Take a study suggesting that a poor diet accelerates aging. Readers were just as engaged in the story—but more flexible in their beliefs—when it mentioned that scientists remained hesitant to draw strong causal conclusions given the number of factors that can affect aging. It even helped just to note that scientists believed more work needed to be done in this area.

根据最近的研究，这种说法是错误的。心理学家在一系列实验中证明，当科学新闻报道中包含警告时，它们能够成功吸引读者的兴趣，并让他们保持开放的心态。例如，一项研究表明不良饮食会加速衰老。当文章提到，鉴于影响衰老的因素众多，科学家们仍不愿得出强有力的因果结论时，读者们同样投入其中，但信念更加灵活。甚至仅仅是指出科学家们认为需要在该领域开展更多研究，就足以起到帮助作用。

We can also convey complexity by highlighting contingencies. Every empirical finding raises unanswered questions about when and where results will be replicated, nullified, or reversed. Contingencies are all the places and populations where an effect may change.

我们还可以通过强调偶然性来传达复杂性。每一个实证研究结果都会引发一些悬而未决的问题，例如研究结果何时何地会被重复、被推翻或逆转。偶然性指的是所有可能发生变化的地点和人群。

Consider diversity: although headlines often say “Diversity is good,” the evidence is full of contingencies. Although diversity of background and thought has the potential to help groups think more broadly and process information more deeply, that potential is realized in some situations but not others. New research reveals that people are more likely to promote diversity and inclusion when the message is more nuanced ( and more accurate): “Diversity is good, but it isn’t easy.” * Acknowledging complexity doesn’t make speakers and writers less convincing; it makes them more credible. It doesn’t lose viewers and readers; it maintains their engagement while stoking their curiosity.

考虑多样性：尽管新闻标题常常说“多样性是好的”，但证据却充满了偶然性。虽然背景和思想的多样性有可能帮助群体更广泛地思考、更深入地处理信息，但这种潜力在某些情况下能够实现，在其他情况下则不然。新的研究表明，当信息更细致入微（也更准确）时，人们更有可能促进多样性和包容性：“多样性是好的，但实现起来并不容易。”* 承认复杂性并不会降低演讲者和作者的说服力，反而会让他们更可信。这不会失去观众和读者，反而会在激发他们的好奇心的同时，保持他们的参与度。

In social science, rather than cherry-picking information to fit our existing narratives, we’re trained to ask whether we should rethink and revise those narratives. When we find evidence that doesn’t fit neatly into our belief systems, we’re expected to share it anyway. * In some of my past writing for the public, though, I regret not having done enough to emphasize areas where evidence was incomplete or conflicting. I sometimes shied away from discussing mixed results because I didn’t want to leave readers confused. Research suggests that many writers fall into the same trap, caught up in trying to “ maintain a consistent narrative rather than an accurate record.”

在社会科学领域，我们被训练去思考是否应该重新思考和修改这些叙述，而不是为了迎合我们现有的叙事而精挑细选信息。当我们发现与我们的信仰体系不完全契合的证据时，我们无论如何都应该分享它。*然而，在我过去为公众撰写的一些文章中，我后悔没有充分强调证据不完整或相互矛盾的领域。有时我会回避讨论结果的矛盾性，因为我不想让读者感到困惑。研究表明，许多作家都陷入了同样的陷阱，陷入了试图“保持一致的叙述，而不是准确的记录”的困境。

A fascinating example is the divide around emotional intelligence. On one extreme is Daniel Goleman, who popularized the concept. He preaches that emotional intelligence matters more for performance than cognitive ability (IQ) and accounts for “nearly 90 percent” of success in leadership jobs. At the other extreme is Jordan Peterson, writing that “There is NO SUCH THING AS EQ” and prosecuting emotional intelligence as “a fraudulent concept, a fad, a convenient band-wagon, a corporate marketing scheme.”

一个引人入胜的例子是围绕情商的分歧。一个极端是丹尼尔·戈尔曼，他推广了这一概念。他鼓吹情商比认知能力（智商）更能影响绩效，并且在领导岗位上“几乎90%的成功”取决于情商。另一个极端是乔丹·彼得森，他写道“情商这玩意儿根本不存在”，并将情商斥为“一个骗人的概念、一时的热潮、一时兴起的潮流、一个企业营销伎俩”。

Both men hold doctorates in psychology, but neither seems particularly interested in creating an accurate record. If Peterson had bothered to read the comprehensive meta-analyses of studies spanning nearly two hundred jobs, he’d have discovered that—contrary to his claims—emotional intelligence is real and it does matter. Emotional intelligence tests predict performance even after controlling for IQ and personality. If Goleman hadn’t ignored those same data, he’d have learned that if you want to predict performance across jobs, IQ is more than twice as important as emotional intelligence (which accounts for only 3 to 8 percent of performance).

两人都拥有心理学博士学位，但似乎都对创造准确的记录并不特别感兴趣。如果彼得森费心阅读涵盖近两百个工作领域的综合研究荟萃分析，他就会发现——与他的说法相反——情商是真实存在的，而且确实很重要。即使在控制了智商和性格因素后，情商测试也能预测绩效。如果戈尔曼没有忽略这些数据，他就会发现，如果要预测不同工作领域的绩效，智商的重要性是情商的两倍多（情商仅占绩效的3%到8%）。

I think they’re both missing the point. Instead of arguing about whether emotional intelligence is meaningful, we should be focusing on the contingencies that explain when it’s more and less consequential. It turns out that emotional intelligence is beneficial in jobs that involve dealing with emotions, but less relevant—and maybe even detrimental—in work where emotions are less central. If you’re a real estate agent, a customer service representative, or a counselor, being skilled at perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions can help you support your clients and address their problems. If you’re a mechanic or an accountant, being an emotional genius is less useful and could even become a distraction. If you’re fixing my car or doing my taxes, I’d rather you didn’t pay too much attention to my emotions.

我认为他们俩都没抓住重点。与其争论情商是否有意义，我们更应该关注那些解释情商何时更重要、何时更不重要的偶然性。事实证明，情商在涉及情绪处理的工作中大有裨益，但在情绪不那么重要的工作中，情商就没那么重要了，甚至可能有害。如果你是房地产经纪人、客服代表或咨询师，善于感知、理解和管理情绪可以帮助你支持客户，解决他们的问题。如果你是机械师或会计师，拥有情绪天才就没那么有用，甚至可能分散注意力。如果你在帮我修车或报税，我宁愿你不要太关注我的情绪。

In an effort to set the record straight, I wrote a short LinkedIn post arguing that emotional intelligence is overrated. I did my best to follow my own guidelines for complexity:

为了澄清事实，我在领英上写了一篇短文，认为情商被高估了。我尽力遵循自己对复杂性的指导原则：

Nuance: This isn’t to say that emotional intelligence is useless.

Caveats: As better tests of emotional intelligence are designed, our knowledge may change.

Contingencies: For now, the best available evidence suggests that emotional intelligence is not a panacea. Let’s recognize it for what it is: a set of skills that can be beneficial in situations where emotional information is rich or vital.

细微差别：这并不是说情商一无是处。注意事项：随着情商测试的改进，我们的认知可能会发生变化。意外情况：目前，现有的最佳证据表明，情商并非万能药。让我们认清它的本质：它是一套在情感信息丰富或至关重要的情况下能够发挥作用的技能。

Over a thousand comments poured in, and I was pleasantly surprised that many reacted enthusiastically to the complexified message. Some mentioned that nothing is either/or and that data can help us reexamine even our closely held beliefs. Others were downright hostile. They turned a blind eye to the evidence and insisted that emotional intelligence was the sine qua non of success. It was as if they belonged to an emotional intelligence cult.

一千多条评论涌入，令我惊喜的是，许多人对这条复杂的信息反应热烈。有人提到，世事无绝对，数据甚至可以帮助我们重新审视我们根深蒂固的信念。另一些人则完全持敌对态度。他们对证据视而不见，坚称情商是成功的必要条件。他们仿佛加入了一个情商崇拜组织。

From time to time I’ve run into idea cults—groups that stir up a batch of oversimplified intellectual Kool-Aid and recruit followers to serve it widely. They preach the merits of their pet concept and prosecute anyone who calls for nuance or complexity. In the area of health, idea cults defend detox diets and cleanses long after they’ve been exposed as snake oil. In education, there are idea cults around learning styles—the notion that instruction should be tailored to each student’s preference for learning through auditory, visual, or kinesthetic modes. Some teachers are determined to tailor their instruction accordingly despite decades of evidence that although students might enjoy listening, reading, or doing, they don’t actually learn better that way. In psychology, I’ve inadvertently offended members of idea cults when I’ve shared evidence that meditation isn’t the only way to prevent stress or promote mindfulness; that when it comes to reliability and validity, the Myers-Briggs personality tool falls somewhere between a horoscope and a heart monitor; and that being more authentic can sometimes make us less successful. If you find yourself saying ____ is always good or ____ is never bad, you may be a member of an idea cult. Appreciating complexity reminds us that no behavior is always effective and that all cures have unintended consequences.

我时不时会碰到一些思想狂热分子——这些团体鼓吹一堆过于简化的知识分子“酷爱”（Kool-Aid），并招募追随者广泛传播。他们宣扬自己钟爱的理念的优点，并起诉任何要求细节或复杂性的人。在健康领域，思想狂热分子在排毒饮食和净化疗法被揭穿是骗人的蛇油之后很久仍在为其辩护。在教育领域，存在着围绕学习风格的思想狂热分子——这种观念认为教学应该根据每个学生的学习偏好，通过听觉、视觉或动觉模式进行量身定制。尽管几十年来有证据表明，尽管学生可能喜欢听、读或做，但实际上他们并没有学得更好，但一些教师仍然执意要根据学生的偏好定制教学。在心理学领域，我无意中冒犯了思想狂热分子，因为我分享了一些证据，表明冥想并非预防压力或促进正念的唯一方法；就信度和效度而言，迈尔斯-布里格斯性格测试工具介于星座和心率监测器之间；更真实有时会让我们不那么成功。如果你发现自己总是说____总是好的，或者____永远不会坏，那么你可能是一个“理想主义”的信徒。欣赏复杂性提醒我们，没有任何行为是永远有效的，所有的治疗方法都会产生意想不到的后果。

In the moral philosophy of John Rawls, the veil of ignorance asks us to judge the justice of a society by whether we’d join it without knowing our place in it. I think the scientist’s veil of ignorance is to ask whether we’d accept the results of a study based on the methods involved, without knowing what the conclusion will be.

在约翰·罗尔斯的道德哲学中，无知之幕要求我们判断一个社会的正义性，在于我们是否会在不了解自身处境的情况下加入这个社会。我认为科学家的无知之幕，在于我们是否会接受一项基于其研究方法得出的研究结果，而我们并不知道其结论是什么。

MIXED FEELINGS

复杂的感受

In polarized discussions, a common piece of advice is to take the other side’s perspective. In theory, putting ourselves in another person’s shoes enables us to walk in lockstep with them. In practice, though, it’s not that simple.

在两极化的讨论中，一个常见的建议是站在对方的角度思考。理论上，设身处地为他人着想能让我们与他们步调一致。然而，实际上并非如此简单。

In a pair of experiments, randomly assigning people to reflect on the intentions and interests of their political opposites made them less receptive to rethinking their own attitudes on health care and universal basic income. Across twenty-five experiments, imagining other people’s perspectives failed to elicit more accurate insights—and occasionally made participants more confident in their own inaccurate judgments. Perspective-taking consistently fails because we’re terrible mind readers. We’re just guessing.

在两项实验中，研究人员随机安排受试者反思政治对手的意图和利益，结果发现他们更难重新思考自己对医疗保健和全民基本收入的态度。在25项实验中，想象他人的观点未能引发更准确的洞察，有时反而会让受试者对自己不准确的判断更有信心。换位思考总是会失败，因为我们不擅长读心术，只会猜测。

If we don’t understand someone, we can’t have a eureka moment by imagining his perspective. Polls show that Democrats underestimate the number of Republicans who recognize the prevalence of racism and sexism—and Republicans underestimate the number of Democrats who are proud to be Americans and oppose open borders. The greater the distance between us and an adversary, the more likely we are to oversimplify their actual motives and invent explanations that stray far from their reality. What works is not perspective-taking but perspective-seeking: actually talking to people to gain insight into the nuances of their views. That’s what good scientists do: instead of drawing conclusions about people based on minimal clues, they test their hypotheses by striking up conversations.

如果我们不理解某人，就无法通过想象他的观点而顿悟。民意调查显示，民主党低估了认识到种族主义和性别歧视普遍存在的共和党人的数量，而共和党人也低估了以身为美国人为荣并反对开放边境的民主党人的数量。我们与对手的距离越远，我们就越有可能过度简化他们的实际动机，并编造出与现实相去甚远的解释。有效的不是换位思考，而是寻求视角：真正地与人们交谈，深入了解他们观点的细微差别。优秀的科学家就是这样做的：他们不会根据微不足道的线索就对人下结论，而是通过展开对话来检验他们的假设。

For a long time, I believed that the best way to make those conversations less polarizing was to leave emotions out of them. If only we could keep our feelings off the table, we’d all be more open to rethinking. Then I read evidence that complicated my thinking.

很长一段时间以来，我都认为，让这些对话不那么两极化的最好方法就是避免情绪化。只要我们能克制自己的情绪，就能更乐于反思。后来，我看到了一些证据，让我的思路变得复杂起来。

It turns out that even if we disagree strongly with someone on a social issue, when we discover that she cares deeply about the issue, we trust her more. We might still dislike her, but we see her passion for a principle as a sign of integrity. We reject the belief but grow to respect the person behind it.

事实证明，即使我们在某个社会问题上与某人意见相左，当我们发现她对这个问题深切关注时，我们也会更加信任她。我们或许仍然不喜欢她，但我们会将她对原则的热情视为正直的象征。我们拒绝接受这种信念，但会逐渐尊重其背后的人。

It can help to make that respect explicit at the start of a conversation. In one experiment, if an ideological opponent merely began by acknowledging that “ I have a lot of respect for people like you who stand by their principles,” people were less likely to see her as an adversary—and showed her more generosity.

在对话开始时明确表达这种尊重会很有帮助。在一项实验中，如果一位意识形态对手一开始就承认“我非常尊重像你这样坚持原则的人”，人们就不太可能把她视为对手，反而会更慷慨地对待她。

When Peter Coleman brings people together in his Difficult Conversations Lab, he plays them the recording of their discussions afterward. What he wants to learn is how they were feeling, moment by moment, as they listen to themselves. After studying over five hundred of these conversations, he found that the unproductive ones feature a more limited set of both positive and negative emotions, as illustrated below in the image on the left. People get trapped in emotional simplicity, with one or two dominant feelings.

彼得·科尔曼在他的“艰难对话实验室”里把人们聚集在一起，之后会播放他们谈话的录音。他想要了解的是，当他们倾听自己时，每一刻的感受。在研究了五百多段这样的对话后，他发现，那些效率低下的对话，其积极和消极情绪的种类都比较有限，如下图左所示。人们容易陷入情绪的简单化，被一两种情绪所主导。

As you can see with the duo on the right, the productive conversations cover a much more varied spectrum of emotions. They’re not less emotional—they’re more emotionally complex. At one point, people might be angry about the other person’s views, but by the next minute they’re curious to learn more. Soon they could be shifting into anxiety and then excitement about considering a new perspective. Sometimes they even stumble into the joy of being wrong.

正如右边的两人组所示，富有成效的对话涵盖了更为丰富的情绪。他们并非缺乏情感，而是情感更加复杂。有时，人们可能对对方的观点感到愤怒，但下一刻他们又会好奇地想要了解更多。很快，他们可能会转变为焦虑，然后又因为思考新的视角而感到兴奋。有时，他们甚至会偶然发现犯错的喜悦。

In a productive conversation, people treat their feelings as a rough draft. Like art, emotions are works in progress. It rarely serves us well to frame our first sketch. As we gain perspective, we revise what we feel. Sometimes we even start over from scratch.

在富有成效的对话中，人们会把自己的感受当作草稿。就像艺术一样，情绪也是不断进行的作品。构思好第一稿对我们通常没什么好处。随着我们逐渐了解情况，我们会修改自己的感受。有时我们甚至会从头开始。

What stands in the way of rethinking isn’t the expression of emotion; it’s a restricted range of emotion. So how do we infuse our charged conversations with greater emotional variety—and thereby greater potential for mutual understanding and rethinking?

阻碍反思的并非情感的表达，而是情感范围的受限。那么，我们如何才能为充满激情的对话注入更多样的情感，从而提升相互理解和反思的潜力呢？

It helps to remember that we can fall victim to binary bias with emotions, not only with issues. Just as the spectrum of beliefs on charged topics is much more complex than two extremes, our emotions are often more mixed than we realize. * If you come across evidence that you might be wrong about the best path to gun safety, you can simultaneously feel upset by and intrigued with what you’ve learned. If you feel wronged by someone with a different set of beliefs, you can be simultaneously angry about your past interactions and hopeful about a future relationship. If someone says your actions haven’t lived up to your antiracist rhetoric, you can experience both defensiveness ( I’m a good person! ) and remorse ( I could’ve done a lot more ).

记住，我们不仅会在问题上，还会在情感上成为二元偏见的受害者。正如敏感话题上的信仰范围远比两个极端复杂得多一样，我们的情绪也往往比我们意识到的更加复杂。*如果你发现证据表明自己对枪支安全最佳途径的理解可能存在错误，你可能会对所了解到的情况感到不安，同时也会感到好奇。如果你觉得自己被持有不同信仰的人冤枉了，你可能会对过去的交往感到愤怒，同时也对未来的关系充满希望。如果有人说你的行为与你的反种族主义言论不符，你可能会同时感到防御心理（我是个好人！）和悔恨（我本可以做得更好）。

In the spring of 2020, a Black man named Christian Cooper was bird-watching in Central Park when a white woman walked by with her dog. He respectfully asked her to put the dog on a leash, as the nearby signs required. When she refused, he stayed calm and started filming her on his phone. She responded by informing him that she was going to call the police and “tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life.” She went on to do exactly that with a 911 operator.

2020年春天，一位名叫克里斯蒂安·库珀的黑人男子正在中央公园观鸟，这时一位白人女子牵着她的狗走过。他礼貌地请她按照附近标识的要求给狗拴上皮带。当她拒绝时，他保持冷静，开始用手机拍摄她。她回应说，她要报警，“告诉他们有个非裔美国人威胁我的生命”。她随后就真的报警了，并联系了911接线员。

When the video of the encounter went viral, the continuum of emotional reactions on social media rightfully spanned from moral outrage to sheer rage. The incident called to mind a painful history of false criminal accusations made against Black men by white women, which often ended with devastating consequences. It was appalling that the woman didn’t leash her dog—and her prejudice.

当这场冲突的视频被广泛传播时，社交媒体上人们的情绪反应理所当然地从道德义愤变成了纯粹的愤怒。这起事件让人想起一段痛苦的历史：白人女性对黑人男性提出虚假的刑事指控，而这些指控往往以毁灭性的后果告终。令人震惊的是，这名女性竟然没有拴住她的狗——以及她对黑人男性的偏见。

“I’m not a racist. I did not mean to harm that man in any way,” the woman declared in her public apology. “I think I was just scared.” Her simple explanation overlooks the complex emotions that fueled her actions. She could have stopped to ask why she had been afraid—what views about Black men had led her to feel threatened in a polite conversation? She could have paused to consider why she had felt entitled to lie to the police—what power dynamics had made her feel this was acceptable?

“我不是种族主义者。我绝对没有要伤害那个男人的意思，”这位女士在公开道歉中说道。“我想我只是害怕。”她简单的解释忽略了驱使她行动的复杂情绪。她本可以停下来问问自己为什么害怕——什么样的黑人男性观点让她在礼貌的谈话中感到受到威胁？她本可以停下来思考，为什么她觉得自己有权向警察撒谎——什么样的权力动态让她觉得这是可以接受的？

Her simple denial overlooks the complex reality that racism is a function of our actions, not merely our intentions. As historian Ibram X. Kendi writes, “ Racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be a racist one minute and an antiracist the next.” Humans, like polarizing issues, rarely come in binaries.

她的简单否认忽视了一个复杂的现实：种族主义源于我们的行为，而非仅仅源于我们的意图。正如历史学家伊布拉姆·X·肯迪所写：“种族主义者和反种族主义者并非固定不变的身份。我们可能前一分钟还是种族主义者，后一分钟又变成了反种族主义者。” 人类，就像那些两极分化的问题一样，很少是非对立的。

When asked whether he accepted her apology, Christian Cooper refused to make a simple judgment, offering a nuanced assessment:

当被问及是否接受她的道歉时，克里斯蒂安·库珀拒绝做出简单的判断，而是给出了细致的评估：

I think her apology is sincere. I’m not sure if in that apology she recognizes that while she may not be or consider herself a racist, that particular act was definitely racist. . . .

Granted, it was a stressful situation, a sudden situation, maybe a moment of spectacularly poor judgment, but she went there. . . .

Is she a racist? I can’t answer that—only she can answer that . . . going forward with how she conducts herself, and how she chooses to reflect on the situation and examine it.

我认为她的道歉是真诚的。我不确定她在道歉中是否意识到，虽然她可能不是种族主义者，或者不认为自己是种族主义者，但那个特定的行为绝对是种族主义的……诚然，那是一个压力很大的情况，一个突发事件，也许是一个极其糟糕的判断时刻，但她还是这么做了……她是种族主义者吗？我无法回答这个问题——只有她自己才能回答……接下来她将如何表现，以及她如何选择反思和审视这种情况。

By expressing his mixed emotions and his uncertainty about how to judge the woman, Christian signaled his willingness to rethink the situation and encouraged others to rethink their own reactions. You might even be experiencing some complex emotions as you read this.

克里斯蒂安表达了他复杂的情绪，以及他不知道该如何评判这位女士，表明他愿意重新思考这个问题，并鼓励其他人也反思自己的反应。读到这里，你或许也会感受到一些复杂的情绪。

It shouldn’t be up to the victim to inject complexity into a difficult conversation. Rethinking should start with the offender. If the woman had taken responsibility for reevaluating her beliefs and behaviors, she might have become an example to others who recognized a bit of themselves in her reaction. Although she couldn’t change what she’d already done, by recognizing the complex power dynamics that breed and perpetuate systemic racism, she might have spurred deeper discussions of the range of possible steps toward justice.

受害者不应该在艰难的对话中制造复杂局面。反思应该从施暴者开始。如果这位女士承担起重新审视自身信仰和行为的责任，她或许能成为其他人的榜样，让他们从她的反应中看到自己的影子。虽然她无法改变自己已经做过的事，但通过认识到滋生和延续系统性种族主义的复杂权力动态，她或许能够引发更深入的讨论，探讨一系列可能走向正义的措施。

Charged conversations cry out for nuance. When we’re preaching, prosecuting, or politicking, the complexity of reality can seem like an inconvenient truth. In scientist mode, it can be an invigorating truth—it means there are new opportunities for understanding and for progress.

激烈的对话需要细致入微的表达。当我们布道、起诉或参与政治时，现实的复杂性可能看起来像一个难以忽视的真相。但在科学家的视角下，它却可能是一个令人振奋的真相——它意味着理解和进步的新机遇。

CHAPTER 9 第九章

Rewriting the Textbook

重写教科书

Teaching Students to Question Knowledge

教导学生质疑知识

No schooling was allowed to interfere with my education.

—Grant Allen

任何学校都不允许干扰我的教育。——格兰特·艾伦

A decade ago, if you had told Erin McCarthy she would become a teacher, she would have laughed. When she graduated from college, the last thing she wanted to do was teach. She was fascinated by history but bored by her social studies classes. Searching for a way to breathe life into overlooked objects and forgotten events, Erin started her career working in museums. Before long, she found herself writing a resource manual for teachers, leading school tours, and engaging students in interactive programs. She realized that the enthusiasm she saw on field trips was missing in too many classrooms, and she decided to do something about it.

十年前，如果你告诉艾琳·麦卡锡她会成为一名教师，她一定会哈哈大笑。大学毕业后，她最不想做的事情就是教书。她对历史着迷，却对社会学课程感到厌倦。为了给那些被忽视的文物和被遗忘的事件注入新的活力，艾琳开始了在博物馆的工作。不久之后，她开始为教师编写资源手册，带领学校参观，并让学生参与互动项目。她意识到，太多课堂上缺乏她在实地考察中看到的那种热情，于是她决定采取行动。

For the past eight years, Erin has taught social studies in the Milwaukee area. Her mission is to cultivate curiosity about the past, but also to motivate students to update their knowledge in the present. In 2020, she was named Wisconsin’s Teacher of the Year.

过去八年来，艾琳一直在密尔沃基地区教授社会学。她的使命是培养学生对过去的好奇心，并激励他们更新当下的知识。2020年，她被评为威斯康星州年度教师。

One day, an eighth grader complained that the reading assignment from a history textbook was inaccurate. If you’re a teacher, that kind of criticism could be a nightmare. Using an outdated textbook would be a sign that you don’t know your material, and it would be embarrassing if your students noticed the error before you did.

有一天，一个八年级学生抱怨历史课本上的阅读作业不准确。如果你是老师，这种批评可能会是一场噩梦。使用过时的教科书会显得你对教材不够了解，如果你的学生比你先发现错误，那就太尴尬了。

But Erin had assigned that particular reading intentionally. She collects old history books because she enjoys seeing how the stories we tell change over time, and she decided to give her students part of a textbook from 1940. Some of them just accepted the information it presented at face value. Through years of education, they had come to take it for granted that textbooks told the truth. Others were shocked by errors and omissions. It was ingrained in their minds that their readings were filled with incontrovertible facts. The lesson led them to start thinking like scientists and questioning what they were learning: whose story was included, whose was excluded, and what were they missing if only one or two perspectives were shared?

但艾琳特意布置了这份阅读材料。她收藏旧历史书籍，因为她喜欢观察我们讲述的故事是如何随着时间推移而演变的。她决定给学生们阅读1940年教科书的一部分。有些学生只是信以为真。多年的教育让他们理所当然地认为教科书讲的是真话。另一些学生则对其中的错误和遗漏感到震惊。他们根深蒂固地认为，他们读到的内容充满了不容置疑的事实。这堂课让他们开始像科学家一样思考，并质疑自己所学的内容：书中收录了谁的故事，又排除了谁的故事？如果只分享了一两个观点，他们又会错过什么？

After opening her students’ eyes to the fact that knowledge can evolve, Erin’s next step was to show them that it’s always evolving. To set up a unit on expansion in the West, she created her own textbook section describing what it’s like to be a middle-school student today. All the protagonists were women and girls, and all the generic pronouns were female. In the first year she introduced the material, a student raised his hand to point out that the boys were missing. “But there’s one boy,” Erin replied. “Boys were around. They just weren’t doing anything important.” It was an aha moment for the student: he suddenly realized what it was like for an entire group to be marginalized for hundreds of years.

在让学生们认识到知识可以进化之后，艾琳的下一步就是向他们展示知识总是在不断发展。为了开设一个关于西方扩张的单元，她创建了自己的教科书章节，描述当今中学生的生活。所有主角都是女性和女孩，所有通用代词也都是女性。在她引入这些内容的第一年，一个学生举手指出男孩不见了。“但是有一个男孩，”艾琳回答道。“男孩们还在，只是他们没做什么重要的事情。”这让学生恍然大悟：他突然意识到，一个群体被边缘化数百年是什么样的感受。

My favorite assignment of Erin’s is her final one. As a passionate champion of inquiry-based learning, she sends her eighth graders off to do self-directed research in which they inspect, investigate, interrogate, and interpret. Their active learning culminates in a group project: they pick a chapter from their textbook, choosing a time period that interests them and a theme in history that they see as underrepresented. Then they go off to rewrite it.

我最喜欢的是艾琳的期末作业。她是一位探究式学习的热情倡导者，她让八年级学生进行自主研究，在研究中，他们会进行观察、调查、质询和解读。他们的主动学习最终以小组项目的形式结束：他们从课本中挑选一章，选择一个他们感兴趣的时间段和一个他们认为历史中没有得到充分体现的主题。然后，他们开始重写这篇课文。

One group took on the civil rights chapter for failing to cover the original March on Washington, which was called off at the last minute in the early 1940s but inspired Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march two decades later. Other groups revised the chapter on World War II to include the infantry regiments of Hispanic soldiers and second-generation Japanese soldiers who fought for the U.S. Army. “It’s a huge light-bulb moment,” Erin told me.

其中一个团体指责民权章节未能报道最初的华盛顿游行，这场游行在20世纪40年代初的最后一刻被取消，但却启发了马丁·路德·金在20年后发起的历史性游行。其他团体修改了二战章节，加入了为美国陆军作战的西班牙裔步兵团和第二代日本士兵。“这是一个巨大的顿悟时刻，”艾琳告诉我。

Even if you’re not a teacher by profession, you probably have roles in which you spend time educating others—whether as a parent, a mentor, a friend, or a colleague. In fact, every time we try to help someone think again, we’re doing a kind of education. Whether we do our instruction in a classroom or in a boardroom, in an office or at our kitchen table, there are ways to make rethinking central to what—and how—we teach.

即使你并非职业教师，你也可能扮演着需要花时间教育他人的角色——无论是作为家长、导师、朋友还是同事。事实上，每当我们试图帮助他人重新思考时，我们都在进行一种教育。无论我们在教室、会议室、办公室还是餐桌上授课，总有方法让重新思考成为我们教学内容和教学方式的核心。

With so much emphasis placed on imparting knowledge and building confidence, many teachers don’t do enough to encourage students to question themselves and one another. To figure out what it takes to change that mindset, I tracked down some extraordinary educators who foster rethinking cycles by instilling intellectual humility, disseminating doubt, and cultivating curiosity. I also tested a few of my own ideas by turning my classroom into something of a living lab.

由于过于重视传授知识和建立自信，许多教师在鼓励学生质疑自我和彼此之间时做得不够。为了弄清楚如何改变这种心态，我找到了一些杰出的教育家，他们通过灌输知识谦逊、传播怀疑精神和培养好奇心来促进反思循环。我还通过将课堂变成一个生活实验室来测试我自己的一些想法。

LEARNING, INTERRUPTED

学习中断

Looking back on my own early education, one of my biggest disappointments is that I never got to fully experience the biggest upheavals in science. Long before it ever occurred to me to be curious about the cosmos, my teachers started demystifying it in kindergarten. I often wonder how I would have felt if I was a teenager when I first learned that we don’t live on a static, flat disc, but on a spinning, moving sphere.

回顾我早期的教育，最大的遗憾之一就是我从未充分体验过科学领域最伟大的变革。早在我对宇宙产生好奇之前，我的老师们在幼儿园就开始为我揭开宇宙的神秘面纱了。我常常想，如果我十几岁时第一次知道我们并非生活在一个静止的扁平圆盘上，而是生活在一个旋转的球体上，我会作何感想。

I hope I would have been stunned, and that disbelief would have quickly given way to curiosity and eventually the awe of discovery and the joy of being wrong. I also suspect it would have been a life-changing lesson in confident humility. If I could be that mistaken about what was under my own two feet, how many other so-called truths were actually question marks? Sure, I knew that many earlier generations of humans had gotten it wrong, but there’s a huge difference between learning about other people’s false beliefs and actually learning to unbelieve things ourselves.

我希望自己当时会震惊不已，那种怀疑很快会转化为好奇，最终化为发现的敬畏和犯错的喜悦。我还怀疑，这将会是一次改变人生的自信谦逊之课。如果我对自己脚下的事情都如此错误，还有多少所谓的真理其实只是个问号？当然，我知道人类的许多先辈都犯过错误，但了解他人的错误信念和真正学会不相信事物之间，有着巨大的区别。

I realize this thought experiment is wildly impractical. It’s hard enough to keep kids in the dark about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Even if we could pull off such a delay, there’s a risk that some students would seize and freeze on what they learned early on. They could become trapped in an overconfidence cycle where pride in false knowledge fuels conviction, and confirmation and desirability biases lead to validation. Before you know it, we might have a whole nation of flat-earthers.

我意识到这个思想实验极其不切实际。让孩子们对圣诞老人或牙仙子一无所知已经够难的了。即使我们能做到这样的延缓，也存在着一些学生会抓住并僵住他们早期学到的东西的风险。他们可能会陷入一个过度自信的循环：对虚假知识的骄傲会助长信念，而确认偏差和期望偏差又会导致认同。不知不觉中，我们可能就会拥有一个地平说国家。

Evidence shows that if false scientific beliefs aren’t addressed in elementary school, they become harder to change later. “Learning counterintuitive scientific ideas [is] akin to becoming a fluent speaker of a second language,” psychologist Deborah Kelemen writes. It’s “a task that becomes increasingly difficult the longer it is delayed, and one that is almost never achieved with only piecemeal instruction and infrequent practice.” That’s what kids really need: frequent practice at unlearning, especially when it comes to the mechanisms of how cause and effect work.

证据表明，如果小学阶段不解决错误的科学观念，以后就更难改变。“学习违反直觉的科学思想就像流利地说一门第二语言，”心理学家黛博拉·凯勒曼写道。“这项任务拖得越久，难度就越大，而且几乎不可能仅靠零碎的指导和不频繁的练习就能完成。” 这才是孩子们真正需要的：频繁练习，不断忘却，尤其是在涉及因果关系机制方面。

In the field of history education, there’s a growing movement to ask questions that don’t have a single right answer. In a curriculum developed at Stanford, high school students are encouraged to critically examine what really caused the Spanish-American War, whether the New Deal was a success, and why the Montgomery bus boycott was a watershed moment. Some teachers even send students out to interview people with whom they disagree. The focus is less on being right, and more on building the skills to consider different views and argue productively about them.

在历史教育领域，一股日益兴起的潮流是提出那些没有唯一正确答案的问题。斯坦福大学开发了一套课程，鼓励高中生批判性地审视美西战争的真正原因、新政是否成功，以及蒙哥马利抵制巴士运动为何成为历史的分水岭。一些教师甚至会派学生去采访那些与他们意见相左的人。这种教学模式的重点不再在于学生是否正确，而在于培养学生思考不同观点并进行有效辩论的能力。

That doesn’t mean all interpretations are accepted as valid. When the son of a Holocaust survivor came to her class, Erin McCarthy told her students that some people denied the existence of the Holocaust, and taught them to examine the evidence and reject those false claims. This is part of a broader movement to teach kids to think like fact-checkers: the guidelines include (1) “interrogate information instead of simply consuming it,” (2) “reject rank and popularity as a proxy for reliability,” and (3) “understand that the sender of information is often not its source.”

这并不意味着所有解读都有效。当一位大屠杀幸存者的儿子来到艾琳·麦卡锡的课堂时，她告诉学生们，有些人否认大屠杀的存在，并教导他们审视证据，驳斥那些虚假的论断。这是一项更广泛的运动的一部分，旨在教导孩子们像事实核查员一样思考：指导方针包括：(1)“审问信息，而非简单地消化它”，(2)“不要将排名和受欢迎程度作为可靠性的衡量标准”，以及(3)“要理解信息的发出者往往并非其来源。”

These principles are valuable beyond the classroom. At our family dinner table, we sometimes hold myth-busting discussions. My wife and I have shared how we learned in school that Pluto was a planet (not true anymore) and Columbus discovered America (never true). Our kids have taught us that King Tut probably didn’t die in a chariot accident and gleefully explained that when sloths do their version of a fart, the gas comes not from their behinds but from their mouths.

这些原则在课堂之外也同样宝贵。我们家的餐桌上，有时会进行一些打破迷思的讨论。我和妻子分享了我们在学校学到的冥王星是一颗行星（现在已经不是了）以及哥伦布发现美洲（这从来都不是真的）的经历。孩子们告诉我们，图坦卡蒙国王可能没有死于战车事故，并兴高采烈地解释说，树懒放屁时，气体不是从屁股里出来的，而是从嘴里出来的。

Rethinking needs to become a regular habit. Unfortunately, traditional methods of education don’t always allow students to form that habit.

反思需要成为一种习惯。遗憾的是，传统的教育方法并不总是能让学生养成这种习惯。

THE DUMBSTRUCK EFFECT

惊呆效应

It’s week twelve of physics class, and you get to attend a couple of sessions with a new, highly rated instructor to learn about static equilibrium and fluids. The first session is on statics; it’s a lecture. The second is on fluids, and it’s an active-learning session. One of your roommates has a different, equally popular instructor who does the opposite—using active learning for statics and lecturing on fluids.

物理课已经到了第十二周，你有机会去听几节课，听一位评价很高的新老师讲授静态平衡和流体。第一节课讲的是静力学，是讲座式的。第二节课讲的是流体，是主动学习式的。你的一位室友有一位同样受欢迎的老师，他的做法正好相反——他采用主动学习的方式讲授静力学，并讲授流体。

In both cases the content and the handouts are identical; the only difference is the delivery method. During the lecture the instructor presents slides, gives explanations, does demonstrations, and solves sample problems, and you take notes on the handouts. In the active-learning session, instead of doing the example problems himself, the instructor sends the class off to figure them out in small groups, wandering around to ask questions and offer tips before walking the class through the solution. At the end, you fill out a survey.

两种课程的内容和讲义都相同，唯一的区别在于授课方式。在课堂上，讲师会播放幻灯片、进行讲解、进行演示并解答例题，学生则根据讲义做笔记。在主动学习环节，讲师不会亲自解答例题，而是让学生分成小组进行解答，在引导学生完成解答之前，讲师会四处走动，提问并提供一些建议。最后，学生需要填写一份调查问卷。

In this experiment the topic doesn’t matter: the teaching method is what shapes your experience. I expected active learning to win the day, but the data suggest that you and your roommate will both enjoy the subject more when it’s delivered by lecture. You’ll also rate the instructor who lectures as more effective—and you’ll be more likely to say you wish all your physics courses were taught that way.

在这个实验中，主题并不重要：教学方法才是塑造你体验的关键。我原本以为主动学习会占上风，但数据表明，当课程以讲座形式授课时，你和你的室友都会更喜欢这门课。你也会认为授课的老师更有效率——而且你更有可能说，你希望所有的物理课程都以这种方式授课。

Upon reflection, the appeal of dynamic lectures shouldn’t be surprising. For generations, people have admired the rhetorical eloquence of poets like Maya Angelou, politicians like John F. Kennedy Jr. and Ronald Reagan, preachers like Martin Luther King Jr., and teachers like Richard Feynman. Today we live in a golden age of spellbinding speaking, where great orators engage and educate from platforms with unprecedented reach. Creatives used to share their methods in small communities; now they can accumulate enough YouTube and Instagram subscribers to populate a small country. Pastors once gave sermons to hundreds at church; now they can reach hundreds of thousands over the internet in megachurches. Professors used to teach small enough classes that they could spend individual time with each student; now their lessons can be broadcast to millions through online courses.

细想之下，动态讲座的吸引力其实并不令人意外。几代人以来，人们一直钦佩玛雅·安吉洛这样的诗人、小约翰·F·肯尼迪和罗纳德·里根这样的政治家、马丁·路德·金这样的传教士以及理查德·费曼这样的教师的雄辩口才。如今，我们生活在一个引人入胜的演讲黄金时代，伟大的演说家们通过前所未有的平台进行互动和教育。过去，创意人士只在小圈子里分享他们的方法；而现在，他们可以积累足够多的YouTube和Instagram订阅用户，覆盖一个小国。牧师曾经在教堂里向数百人布道；而现在，他们可以通过互联网在巨型教堂里接触到数十万人。过去，教授们的班级规模很小，可以与每个学生单独相处；而现在，他们的课程可以通过在线课程向数百万人播出。

It’s clear that these lectures are entertaining and informative. The question is whether they’re the ideal method of teaching. In the physics experiment, the students took tests to gauge how much they had learned about statics and fluids. Despite enjoying the lectures more, they actually gained more knowledge and skill from the active-learning session. It required more mental effort, which made it less fun but led to deeper understanding.

显然，这些讲座既有趣又信息量大。问题在于，它们是否是理想的教学方法。在物理实验中，学生们参加了测试，以评估他们对静力学和流体的学习程度。尽管他们更喜欢听讲座，但他们实际上从主动学习环节中获得了更多的知识和技能。主动学习需要更多的脑力投入，这降低了学习的趣味性，但却能加深理解。

For a long time, I believed that we learn more when we’re having fun. This research convinced me I was wrong. It also reminded me of my favorite physics teacher, who got stellar reviews for letting us play Ping-Pong in class, but didn’t quite make the coefficient of friction stick.

很长一段时间以来，我都认为玩得开心才能学得更多。这项研究让我明白了我的错误。它也让我想起了我最喜欢的物理老师，他因为允许我们在课堂上打乒乓球而获得了极高的评价，但却没有完全理解摩擦系数。

Active learning has impact far beyond physics. A meta-analysis compared the effects of lecturing and active learning on students’ mastery of the material, cumulating 225 studies with over 46,000 undergraduates in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Active-learning methods included group problem solving, worksheets, and tutorials. On average, students scored half a letter grade worse under traditional lecturing than through active learning—and students were 1.55 times more likely to fail in classes with traditional lecturing. The researchers estimate that if the students who failed in lecture courses had participated in active learning, more than $3.5 million in tuition could have been saved.

主动学习的影响远不止物理学。一项荟萃分析比较了授课和主动学习对学生掌握材料的影响，该分析累计纳入了225项研究，涉及超过46,000名科学、技术、工程和数学（STEM）专业的本科生。主动学习方法包括小组解决问题、练习题和辅导。平均而言，学生在传统授课下的成绩比主动学习低半个等级，而且学生在传统授课下的课程中不及格的可能性要高出1.55倍。研究人员估计，如果那些在授课课程中不及格的学生参加了主动学习，可以节省超过350万美元的学费。

It’s not hard to see why a boring lecture would fail, but even captivating lectures can fall short for a less obvious, more concerning reason. Lectures aren’t designed to accommodate dialogue or disagreement; they turn students into passive receivers of information rather than active thinkers. In the above meta-analysis, lecturing was especially ineffective in debunking known misconceptions—in leading students to think again. And experiments have shown that when a speaker delivers an inspiring message, the audience scrutinizes the material less carefully and forgets more of the content—even while claiming to remember more of it.

枯燥乏味的讲座为何会失败并不难理解，但即使是引人入胜的讲座，也可能因为一个不那么显而易见、却更令人担忧的原因而失败。讲座的设计初衷并非为了鼓励对话或分歧；它们会把学生变成被动的信息接收者，而不是主动的思考者。在上述元分析中，讲座在澄清已知错误观念方面尤其无效，尤其是在引导学生重新思考方面。实验表明，当演讲者传达鼓舞人心的信息时，听众会更不仔细地审视内容，忘记更多内容——即使他们声称自己记住了更多内容。

Social scientists have called this phenomenon the awestruck effect, but I think it’s better described as the dumbstruck effect. The sage-on-the-stage often preaches new thoughts, but rarely teaches us how to think for ourselves. Thoughtful lecturers might prosecute inaccurate arguments and tell us what to think instead, but they don’t necessarily show us how to rethink moving forward. Charismatic speakers can put us under a political spell, under which we follow them to gain their approval or affiliate with their tribe. We should be persuaded by the substance of an argument, not the shiny package in which it’s wrapped.

社会科学家将这种现象称为“敬畏效应”，但我认为更确切的说法是“目瞪口呆效应”。舞台上的智者常常宣扬新思想，却很少教我们如何独立思考。深思熟虑的演讲者可能会批判不准确的论点，并告诉我们应该如何思考，但他们不一定会指导我们如何重新思考并继续前进。魅力十足的演讲者可能会让我们陷入政治迷惑，我们会被他们迷惑，从而获得他们的认可或加入他们的阵营。我们应该被论点的实质内容所说服，而不是被包装得光鲜亮丽的外表所打动。

To be clear, I’m not suggesting eliminating lectures altogether. I love watching TED talks and have even learned to enjoy giving them. It was attending brilliant lectures that first piqued my curiosity about becoming a teacher, and I’m not opposed to doing some lecturing in my own classes. I just think it’s a problem that lectures remain the dominant method of teaching in secondary and higher education. Expect a lecture on that soon.

需要说明的是，我并非建议完全取消讲座。我喜欢看TED演讲，甚至已经学会了享受演讲的乐趣。正是那些精彩的讲座最初激起了我对教师职业的好奇心，我也不反对在自己的课堂上讲课。我只是觉得，在中学和高等教育中，讲座仍然是主流教学方式，这是一个问题。我很快就会有一场关于这方面的讲座。

In North American universities, more than half of STEM professors spend at least 80 percent of their time lecturing, just over a quarter incorporate bits of interactivity, and fewer than a fifth use truly student-centered methods that involve active learning. In high schools it seems that half of teachers lecture most or all of the time. * Lectures are not always the best method of learning, and they are not enough to develop students into lifelong learners. If you spend all of your school years being fed information and are never given the opportunity to question it, you won’t develop the tools for rethinking that you need in life.

在北美大学，超过一半的STEM教授至少将80%的时间用于授课，略高于四分之一的教授会融入一些互动内容，不到五分之一的教授采用真正以学生为中心的教学方法，鼓励学生主动学习。在高中，似乎有一半的教师大部分或全部时间都在授课。* 授课并非总是最佳的学习方法，也不足以将学生培养成终身学习者。如果你在整个学生时代都被灌输信息，却从未获得质疑的机会，你就无法培养出生活中所需的反思能力。

Steve Macone/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast

史蒂夫·马科内/《纽约客》收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF REPEATING

无法承受的重复之轻

There’s only one class I regret missing in college. It was taught by a philosopher named Robert Nozick. One of his ideas became famous thanks to the movie The Matrix : in the 1970s, Nozick introduced a thought experiment about whether people would choose to enter an “experience machine” that could provide infinite pleasure but remove them from real life. * In his classroom, Nozick created his own version of an experience machine: he insisted on teaching a new class every year. “ I do my thinking through the courses I give,” he said.

大学里我只后悔错过一门课。这门课的老师是哲学家罗伯特·诺齐克。他的一个想法因电影《黑客帝国》而闻名：20世纪70年代，诺齐克提出了一个思想实验，探讨人们是否会选择进入一台“体验机器”，这台机器能提供无限的快乐，但却会让他们远离现实生活。*在课堂上，诺齐克创造了他自己版本的体验机器：他坚持每年教授一门新课。“我的思考是通过我教授的课程进行的，”他说。

Nozick taught one course on truth; another on philosophy and neuroscience; a third on Socrates, Buddha, and Jesus; a fourth on thinking about thinking; and a fifth on the Russian Revolution. In four decades of teaching, he taught only one class a second time: it was on the good life. “ Presenting a completely polished and worked-out view doesn’t give students a feel for what it’s like to do original work in philosophy and to see it happen, to catch on to doing it,” he explained. Sadly, before I could take one of his courses, he died of cancer.

诺齐克教过一门关于真理的课程；另一门关于哲学和神经科学的课程；第三门关于苏格拉底、佛陀和耶稣的课程；第四门关于思考的课程；第五门关于俄国革命的课程。在四十年的教学生涯中，他只教过一门课两次：那门课是关于美好生活的。“呈现一个完全精心设计、经过深思熟虑的观点，无法让学生感受到在哲学领域进行原创性工作、见证其发生、并理解其含义是什么，”他解释道。令人难过的是，在我有机会上他的一门课之前，他因癌症去世了。

What I found so inspiring about Nozick’s approach was that he wasn’t content for students to learn from him. He wanted them to learn with him. Every time he tackled a new topic, he would have the opportunity to rethink his existing views on it. He was a remarkable role model for changing up our familiar methods of teaching—and learning. When I started teaching, I wanted to adopt some of his principles. I wasn’t prepared to inflict an entire semester of half-baked ideas on my students, so I set a benchmark: every year I would aim to throw out 20 percent of my class and replace it with new material. If I was doing new thinking every year, we could all start rethinking together.

诺齐克方法最让我受启发的地方在于，他不满足于学生向他学习，而是希望他们与他一起学习。每当他探讨一个新课题时，他都会有机会重新思考自己现有的观点。在改变我们习以为常的教学方法和学习方法方面，他是一位杰出的榜样。我开始教学时，也想借鉴他的一些原则。我不准备把一整个学期的不成熟想法强加给我的学生，所以我设定了一个基准：每年我的目标是淘汰20%的课程内容，并用新材料取而代之。如果我每年都进行新的思考，我们就能一起开始重新思考。

With the other 80 percent of the material, though, I found myself failing. I was teaching a semester-long class on organizational behavior for juniors and seniors. When I introduced evidence, I wasn’t giving them the space to rethink it. After years of wrestling with this problem, it dawned on me that I could create a new assignment to teach rethinking. I assigned students to work in small groups to record their own mini-podcasts or mini–TED talks. Their charge was to question a popular practice, to champion an idea that went against the grain of conventional wisdom, or to challenge principles covered in class.

然而，剩下的80%的内容，我发现自己不太擅长。当时我教的是一门为期一学期的组织行为学课程，面向大三和大四学生。当我引入证据时，我没有给他们反思的空间。经过多年的苦苦思索，我突然意识到可以设计一项新的作业来教授反思。我让学生们分成小组，录制他们自己的迷你播客或迷你TED演讲。他们的任务是质疑一种流行的做法，倡导一种违背传统智慧的观点，或者挑战课堂上讲授的原则。

As they started working on the project, I noticed a surprising pattern. The students who struggled the most were the straight-A students—the perfectionists. It turns out that although perfectionists are more likely than their peers to ace school, they don’t perform any better than their colleagues at work. This tracks with evidence that, across a wide range of industries, grades are not a strong predictor of job performance.

当他们开始着手这个项目时，我注意到一个令人惊讶的现象。最挣扎的学生是那些成绩全A的学生——完美主义者。事实证明，尽管完美主义者比同龄人更有可能在学校取得优异成绩，但他们在工作中的表现并不比同事更好。这与各行各业的证据相符，即成绩并不能很好地预测工作表现。

Achieving excellence in school often requires mastering old ways of thinking. Building an influential career demands new ways of thinking. In a classic study of highly accomplished architects, the most creative ones graduated with a B average. Their straight-A counterparts were so determined to be right that they often failed to take the risk of rethinking the orthodoxy. A similar pattern emerged in a study of students who graduated at the top of their class. “ Valedictorians aren’t likely to be the future’s visionaries,” education researcher Karen Arnold explains. “They typically settle into the system instead of shaking it up.”

在学校取得优异成绩往往需要掌握旧的思维方式。打造一个有影响力的职业生涯则需要新的思维方式。在一项针对成就卓著的建筑师的经典研究中，最具创造力的建筑师毕业时平均成绩为B。而那些成绩全优的建筑师则过于执着于坚持己见，以至于常常不愿冒险重新思考传统观念。一项针对班级顶尖毕业生的研究中也出现了类似的模式。教育研究员凯伦·阿诺德解释说：“毕业生代表不太可能成为未来的梦想家。他们通常会安于现状，而不是去打破常规。”

That’s what I saw with my straight-A students: they were terrified of being wrong. To give them a strong incentive to take some risks, I made the assignment worth 20 percent of their final grade. I had changed the rules: now they were being rewarded for rethinking instead of regurgitating. I wasn’t sure if that incentive would work until I reviewed the work of a trio of straight-A students. They gave their mini–TED talk about the problems with TED talks, pointing out the risks of reinforcing short attention spans and privileging superficial polish over deep insight. Their presentation was so thoughtful and entertaining that I played it for the entire class. “If you have the courage to stand up to the trend towards glib, seamless answers,” they deadpanned as we laughed, “then stop watching this video right now, and do some real research, like we did.”

这就是我在我那些全优学生身上看到的：他们害怕犯错。为了激励他们勇于冒险，我把作业占到他们期末成绩的20%。我改变了规则：现在他们因为反思而不是死记硬背而获得奖励。我不确定这种激励是否有效，直到我审阅了三位全优学生的作品。他们做了一个迷你TED演讲，探讨了TED演讲的问题，指出强化短暂注意力和重视肤浅的润色而非深刻见解的风险。他们的演讲如此深刻有趣，以至于我给全班同学播放了一遍。“如果你有勇气对抗这种油嘴滑舌、天衣无缝的回答趋势，”他们面无表情地说，我们听得哈哈大笑，“那就现在就别看这个视频了，像我们一样，去做一些真正的研究吧。”

I made the assignment a staple of the course from then on. The following year I wanted to go further in rethinking the content and format of my class. In a typical three-hour class, I would spend no more than twenty to thirty minutes lecturing. The rest is active learning—students make decisions in simulations and negotiate in role-plays, and then we debrief, discuss, debate, and problem solve. My mistake was treating the syllabus as if it were a formal contract: once I finalized it in September, it was effectively set in stone. I decided it was time to change that and invite the students to rethink part of the structure of the class itself.

从那时起，我把这项作业作为课程的一项重要内容。第二年，我想进一步重新思考我的课堂内容和形式。在一堂典型的三小时课里，我的讲课时间不会超过二三十分钟。其余时间都是主动学习——学生在模拟中做出决定，在角色扮演中协商，然后我们进行汇报、讨论、辩论和解决问题。我的错误在于把教学大纲当成了一份正式的合同：一旦我在九月最终确定下来，它实际上就一成不变了。我决定是时候改变这种现状，并邀请学生重新思考课堂结构本身的部分内容。

On my next syllabus, I deliberately left one class session completely blank. Halfway through the semester, I invited the students to work in small groups to develop and pitch an idea for how we should spend that open day. Then they voted.

在我的下一个教学大纲中，我故意留了一节课完全空白。学期过半时，我邀请学生们分成小组，构思并提出一个关于如何度过开放日的想法。然后他们进行了投票。

One of the most popular ideas came from Lauren McCann, who suggested a creative step toward helping students recognize that rethinking was a useful skill—and one they had already been using in college. She invited her classmates to write letters to their freshmen selves covering what they wish they had known back then. The students encouraged their younger selves to stay open to different majors, instead of declaring the first one that erased their uncertainty. To be less obsessed with grades, and more focused on relationships. To explore different career possibilities, rather than committing too soon to the one that promised the most pay or prestige.

最受欢迎的想法之一来自劳伦·麦肯（Lauren McCann），她提出了一个富有创意的步骤，帮助学生认识到反思是一项有用的技能——而且是他们在大学里已经运用过的技能。她邀请同学们给大一时的自己写信，写下他们希望当时就知道的事情。学生们鼓励年轻的自己对不同的专业保持开放的心态，而不是选择第一个能消除他们不确定性的专业。不要太纠结于成绩，而要更注重人际关系。要探索不同的职业可能性，而不是过早地选择那个薪水最高、声望最高的职业。

Lauren collected letters from dozens of students to launch a website, Dear Penn Freshmen. Within twenty-four hours, dearpennfresh.com had over ten thousand visits, and a half dozen schools were starting their own versions to help students rethink their academic, social, and professional choices.

劳伦收集了数十名学生的来信，创建了一个名为“亲爱的宾大新生”的网站。在24小时内，dearpennfresh.com的访问量就超过了一万次，另有六所学校也推出了自己的网站，帮助学生重新思考他们的学术、社交和职业选择。

This practice can extend far beyond the classroom. As we approach any life transition—whether it’s a first job, a second marriage, or a third child—we can pause to ask people what they wish they’d known before they went through that experience. Once we’re on the other side of it, we can share what we ourselves should have rethought.

这种做法可以延伸到课堂之外。当我们面临人生的任何转折点时——无论是第一份工作、第二次婚姻，还是第三个孩子——我们都可以停下来问问人们，在经历这些转变之前，他们希望知道什么。当我们渡过难关后，我们可以分享我们自己应该重新思考的事情。

It’s been demonstrated repeatedly that one of the best ways to learn is to teach. It wasn’t until I let my students design a day of class that I truly understood how much they had to teach one another— and me. They were rethinking not just what they learned, but whom they could learn from.

事实反复证明，最好的学习方式之一就是教学。直到我让学生们设计一天的课程，我才真正明白，他们之间，以及我之间，有多少东西可以互相学习。他们不仅在重新思考自己学到了什么，还在重新思考可以向谁学习。

The following year, the class’s favorite idea took that rethinking a step further: the students hosted a day of “passion talks” on which anyone could teach the class about something he or she loved. We learned how to beatbox and design buildings that mesh with nature and make the world more allergy safe. From that point on, sharing passions has been part of class participation. All the students give a passion talk as a way of introducing themselves to their peers. Year after year, they tell me that it injects a heightened level of curiosity into the room, leaving them eager to soak up insights from each of their classmates.

第二年，班里最受好评的想法将这一反思又推进了一步：学生们举办了为期一天的“激情演讲”，任何人都可以向全班同学讲述自己热爱的事物。我们学习了如何进行口技表演，以及如何设计与自然和谐相处、让世界更加安全的建筑。从那时起，分享激情就成了课堂参与的一部分。所有学生都会进行激情演讲，以此向同学们介绍自己。年复一年，他们告诉我，这为课堂注入了更高的好奇心，让他们渴望从每个同学那里汲取灵感。

www.CartoonCollections.com

www.CartonCollections.com

JACK OF ROUGH DRAFTS, MASTER OF CRAFTS

草稿大师，工艺大师

When I asked a handful of education pioneers to name the best teacher of rethinking they’ve ever encountered, I kept hearing the same name: Ron Berger. If you invited Ron over for dinner, he’s the kind of person who would notice that one of your chairs was broken, ask if you had some tools handy, and fix it on the spot.

当我问几位教育先驱，他们遇到过最好的反思老师是谁时，我总是听到同一个名字：罗恩·伯杰。如果你邀请罗恩来家里吃饭，他会注意到你的一把椅子坏了，问你手边有没有工具，然后当场修好。

For most of his career, Ron was a public-elementary-school teacher in rural Massachusetts. His nurse, his plumber, and his local firefighters were all former students. During the summers and on weekends, he worked as a carpenter. Ron has devoted his life to teaching students an ethic of excellence. Mastering a craft, in his experience, is about constantly revising our thinking. Hands-on craftsmanship is the foundation for his classroom philosophy.

罗恩职业生涯的大部分时间都在马萨诸塞州乡村的公立小学任教。他的护士、水管工和当地的消防员都曾是他的学生。暑假和周末，他则做木工。罗恩毕生致力于培养学生追求卓越的道德品质。根据他的经验，掌握一门手艺意味着不断修正我们的思维。动手实践是他教学理念的基石。

Ron wanted his students to experience the joy of discovery, so he didn’t start by teaching them established knowledge. He began the school year by presenting them with “grapples”—problems to work through in phases. The approach was think-pair-share: the kids started individually, updated their ideas in small groups, and then presented their thoughts to the rest of the class, arriving at solutions together. Instead of introducing existing taxonomies of animals, for example, Ron had them develop their own categories first. Some students classified animals by whether they walked on land, swam in water, or flew through the air; others arranged them according to color, size, or diet. The lesson was that scientists always have many options, and their frameworks are useful in some ways but arbitrary in others.

罗恩希望学生们体验探索的乐趣，所以他并没有一开始就教授他们既有的知识。新学年开始时，他给他们布置了一些“难题”——需要分阶段解决的难题。教学方法采用“思考-配对-分享”：孩子们先单独开始，然后分成小组更新想法，再向全班同学汇报，共同找到解决方案。例如，罗恩没有介绍现有的动物分类法，而是让他们先发展自己的分类法。一些学生根据动物是在陆地上行走、在水中游泳还是在空中飞行来分类；另一些学生则根据颜色、大小或食性来分类。这说明，科学家总是有很多选择，他们的框架在某些方面很有用，但在其他方面却很武断。

When students confront complex problems, they often feel confused. A teacher’s natural impulse is to rescue them as quickly as possible so they don’t feel lost or incompetent. Yet psychologists find that one of the hallmarks of an open mind is responding to confusion with curiosity and interest. One student put it eloquently: “ I need time for my confusion.” Confusion can be a cue that there’s new territory to be explored or a fresh puzzle to be solved.

学生面对复杂问题时，常常会感到困惑。老师的本能是尽快解惑，以免他们感到迷茫或无能。然而，心理学家发现，开放心态的标志之一是用好奇心和兴趣来应对困惑。一位学生曾言之凿凿地说：“我需要时间去排解我的困惑。”困惑可能预示着有新的领域需要探索，或者有新的难题需要解决。

Ron wasn’t content to deliver lessons that erased confusion. He wanted students to embrace confusion. His vision was for them to become leaders of their own learning, much like they would in “do it yourself” (DIY) craft projects. He started encouraging students to think like young scientists: they would identify problems, develop hypotheses, and design their own experiments to test them. His sixth graders went around the community to test local homes for radon gas. His third graders created their own maps of amphibian habitats. His first graders got their own group of snails to take care of, and went on to test which of over 140 foods they liked—and whether they preferred hot or cold, dark or light, and wet or dry environments.

罗恩并不满足于只教授那些消除困惑的课程。他希望学生们能够拥抱困惑。他的愿景是让他们成为自主学习的领导者，就像他们在“自己动手”（DIY）手工项目中一样。他开始鼓励学生像小科学家一样思考：他们会发现问题，提出假设，并设计自己的实验来验证这些假设。他的六年级学生走遍社区，检测当地居民的氡气含量。他的三年级学生绘制了自己的两栖动物栖息地地图。他的一年级学生自己照顾一群蜗牛，并测试它们喜欢140多种食物中的哪一种，以及它们喜欢热还是冷、黑暗还是光明、潮湿还是干燥的环境。

For architecture and engineering lessons, Ron had his students create blueprints for a house. When he required them to do at least four different drafts, other teachers warned him that younger students would become discouraged. Ron disagreed—he had already tested the concept with kindergarteners and first graders in art. Rather than asking them to simply draw a house, he announced, “We’ll be doing four different versions of a drawing of a house.”

在建筑和工程课上，罗恩让学生们画房子的蓝图。当他要求学生们至少画四张不同的草稿时，其他老师警告他，年纪小的学生会感到沮丧。罗恩不同意——他已经在幼儿园和一年级的美术课上测试过这个概念。他没有直接要求学生们画房子，而是宣布：“我们要画四个不同版本的房子。”

Some students didn’t stop there; many wound up deciding to do eight or ten drafts. The students had a support network of classmates cheering them on in their efforts. “Quality means rethinking, reworking, and polishing,” Ron reflects. “They need to feel they will be celebrated, not ridiculed, for going back to the drawing board. . . . They soon began complaining if I didn’t allow them to do more than one version.”

有些学生并没有就此止步；许多人最终决定写八稿或十稿。学生们得到了同学们的支持，在他们努力的过程中为他们加油鼓劲。“高质量意味着反复思考、反复修改和不断完善，”罗恩反思道。“他们需要感受到，重新开始创作会得到赞扬，而不是被嘲笑……如果我不允许他们写多个版本，他们很快就会开始抱怨。”

Ron wanted to teach his students to revise their thinking based on input from others, so he turned the classroom into a challenge network. Every week—and sometimes every day—the entire class would do a critique session. One format was a gallery critique: Ron put everyone’s work on display, sent students around the room to observe, and then facilitated a discussion of what they saw as excellent and why. This method wasn’t used only for art and science projects; for a writing assignment, they would evaluate a sentence or a paragraph. The other format was an in-depth critique: for a single session, the class would focus on the work of one student or group. The authors would explain their goals and where they needed help, and Ron guided the class through a discussion of strengths and areas for development. He encouraged students to be specific and kind: to critique the work rather than the author. He taught them to avoid preaching and prosecuting: since they were sharing their subjective opinions, not objective assessments, they should say “I think” rather than “This isn’t good.” He invited them to show humility and curiosity, framing their suggestions in terms of questions like “I’d love to hear why . . .” and “Have you considered . . .”

Ron 想教会学生根据他人的意见修正自己的思维，所以他把课堂变成了一个挑战网络。每周，有时甚至每天，全班都会进行一次评论环节。一种形式是画廊评论：Ron 会把每个人的作品展示出来，让学生在教室里四处观看，然后引导他们讨论哪些作品是优秀的以及为什么优秀。这种方法不仅适用于艺术和科学项目；对于写作作业，他们会评估一个句子或一个段落。另一种形式是深入评论：在一次评论中，全班会集中讨论一位学生或一个小组的作品。作者会解释他们的目标以及需要帮助的地方，Ron 会引导全班讨论作品的优势和需要改进的地方。他鼓励学生评论要具体、友善：批评作品本身，而不是作者。他教导他们避免说教和指责：既然他们分享的是主观意见，而不是客观评估，就应该说“我认为”，而不是“这不好”。他邀请他们表现出谦逊和好奇心，以“我很想听听为什么……”和“你考虑过……”等问题来提出建议。

The class didn’t just critique projects. Each day they would discuss what excellence looked like. With each new project they updated their criteria. Along with rethinking their own work, they were learning to continually rethink their standards. To help them further evolve those standards, Ron regularly brought in outside experts. Local architects and scientists would come in to offer their own critiques, and the class would incorporate their principles and vocabularies into future discussions. Long after they’d moved on to middle and high school, it was not uncommon for former students to visit Ron’s class and ask for a critique of their work.

这门课不仅仅是对项目进行评审。他们每天都会讨论什么是卓越的。每完成一个新项目，他们都会更新标准。除了反思自己的作品，他们也在学习不断地重新思考自己的标准。为了进一步完善这些标准，Ron 定期邀请外部专家。当地的建筑师和科学家会来提出自己的评论，而班级则会将他们的原则和词汇融入到未来的讨论中。在他们升入初中和高中很久之后，以前的学生经常会来 Ron 的课堂，请他对他们的作品进行评审。

As soon as I connected with Ron Berger, I couldn’t help but wish I had been able to take one of his classes. It wasn’t because I had suffered from a lack of exceptional teachers. It was because I had never had the privilege of being in a classroom with a culture like his, with a whole room of students dedicated to questioning themselves and one another.

一联系上罗恩·伯杰，我就忍不住想上他的课。这并不是因为我缺少优秀的老师，而是因为我从未有幸在拥有他那样文化的课堂上，看到一整屋子的学生都热衷于自我反思，也互相提问。

Ron now spends his days speaking, writing, teaching a course for teachers at Harvard, and consulting with schools. He’s the chief academic officer of EL Education, an organization dedicated to reimagining how teaching and learning take place in schools. Ron and his colleagues work directly with 150 schools and develop curricula that have reached millions of students.

Ron现在忙于演讲、写作、在哈佛大学教授教师课程以及为学校提供咨询服务。他是EL教育的首席学术官，该机构致力于重塑学校的教学方式。Ron和他的同事直接与150所学校合作，开发的课程已惠及数百万学生。

At one of their schools in Idaho, a student named Austin was assigned to make a scientifically accurate drawing of a butterfly. This is his first draft:

在爱达荷州的一所学校里，一位名叫奥斯汀的学生被要求画一幅科学准确的蝴蝶图画。这是他的初稿：

Austin’s classmates formed a critique group. They gave him two rounds of suggestions for changing the shape of the wings, and he produced his second and third drafts. The critique group pointed out that the wings were uneven and that they’d become round again. Austin wasn’t discouraged. On his next revision, the group encouraged him to fill in the pattern on the wings.

奥斯汀的同学们组成了一个评审小组。他们就机翼的形状提出了两轮修改建议，奥斯汀也完成了第二稿和第三稿。评审小组指出机翼形状不均匀，而且又变圆了。奥斯汀并没有灰心。在下一次修改时，评审小组鼓励他把机翼上的图案补全。

For the final draft, Austin was ready to color it in. When Ron showed the completed drawing to a roomful of elementary school students in Maine, they gasped in awe at his progress and his final product.

对于最终稿，奥斯汀准备上色。当罗恩向缅因州一屋子的小学生展示完成的画作时，他们对他的进步和最终作品惊叹不已。

I gasped, too, because Austin made these drawings when he was in first grade.

我也惊叹不已，因为奥斯汀在一年级时就画了这些画。

Seeing a six-year-old undergo that kind of metamorphosis made me think again about how quickly children can become comfortable rethinking and revising. Ever since, I’ve encouraged our kids to do multiple drafts of their own drawings. As excited as they were to see their first draft hanging on the wall, they’re that much prouder of their fourth version.

看到一个六岁的孩子经历如此巨大的蜕变，让我再次思考，孩子们竟然能如此迅速地适应重新思考和修改。从那以后，我一直鼓励孩子们多画几稿。看到初稿挂在墙上，他们兴奋不已，而看到第四稿，他们更是感到无比自豪。

Few of us will have the good fortune to learn to draw a butterfly with Ron Berger or rewrite a textbook with Erin McCarthy. Yet all of us have the opportunity to teach more like them. Whomever we’re educating, we can express more humility, exude more curiosity, and introduce the children in our lives to the infectious joy of discovery.

我们中很少有人有幸能和罗恩·伯杰一起画蝴蝶，或和艾琳·麦卡锡一起改写教科书。然而，我们每个人都有机会像他们一样去教学。无论我们教育的是谁，我们都能展现出更多的谦逊，散发出更多的好奇心，并把探索的喜悦带给我们生活中的孩子们，让他们感受到这种感染力。

I believe that good teachers introduce new thoughts, but great teachers introduce new ways of thinking. Collecting a teacher’s knowledge may help us solve the challenges of the day, but understanding how a teacher thinks can help us navigate the challenges of a lifetime. Ultimately, education is more than the information we accumulate in our heads. It’s the habits we develop as we keep revising our drafts and the skills we build to keep learning.

我相信，好的老师会引入新的思想，而伟大的老师则会引入新的思维方式。汲取老师的知识或许能帮助我们解决日常的挑战，但了解老师的思维方式则能帮助我们应对一生的挑战。归根结底，教育不仅仅是我们头脑中积累的信息，更是我们在不断修改草稿时养成的习惯，以及我们不断学习所积累的技能。

CHAPTER 10 第十章

That’s Not the Way We’ve Always Done It

我们以前的做法并非如此

Building Cultures of Learning at Work

建立工作学习文化

If only it weren’t for the people . . . earth would be an engineer’s paradise.

—Kurt Vonnegut

如果不是因为人类……地球就会成为工程师的天堂。——库尔特·冯内古特

As an avid scuba diver, Luca Parmitano was familiar with the risks of drowning. He just didn’t realize it could happen in outer space.

卢卡·帕米塔诺（Luca Parmitano）是一位潜水爱好者，他深知溺水的风险。只是他没想到在外太空也可能发生溺水事故。

Luca had just become the youngest astronaut ever to take a long trip to the International Space Station. In July 2013, the thirty-six-year-old Italian astronaut completed his first spacewalk, spending six hours running experiments, moving equipment, and setting up power and data cables. Now, a week later, Luca and another astronaut, Chris Cassidy, were heading out for a second walk to continue their work and do some maintenance. As they prepared to leave the airlock, they could see the Earth 250 miles below.

卢卡刚刚成为有史以来前往国际空间站进行长途旅行的最年轻的宇航员。2013年7月，这位36岁的意大利宇航员完成了他的首次太空行走，花了六个小时进行实验、移动设备以及连接电源和数据线。一周后的今天，卢卡和另一位宇航员克里斯·卡西迪即将进行第二次太空行走，继续他们的工作并进行一些维护。当他们准备离开气闸舱时，他们可以看到250英里以下的地球。

After forty-four minutes in space, Luca felt something strange: the back of his head seemed to be wet. He wasn’t sure where the water was coming from. It wasn’t just a nuisance; it could cut off communication by shorting out his microphone or earphones. He reported the problem to Mission Control in Houston, and Chris asked if he was sweating. “I am sweating,” Luca said, “but it feels like a lot of water. It’s not going anywhere, it’s just in my Snoopy cap. Just FYI.” He went back to work.

在太空待了四十四分钟后，卢卡感觉有些奇怪：他的后脑勺似乎湿了。他不知道水是从哪里来的。这可不是什么小麻烦，它可能会短路麦克风或耳机，从而切断通讯。他向休斯顿的任务控制中心报告了这个问题，克里斯问他是不是出汗了。“我确实出汗了，”卢卡说，“但感觉好像有很多水。水哪儿也去不了，只是在我的史努比帽里。仅供参考。”他回去工作了。

The officer in charge of spacewalks, Karina Eversley, knew something was wrong. That’s not normal , she thought, and quickly recruited a team of experts to compile questions for Luca. Was the amount of liquid increasing? Luca couldn’t tell. Was he sure it was water? When he stuck out his tongue to capture a few of the drops that were floating in his helmet, the taste was metallic.

负责太空行走的官员卡琳娜·埃弗斯利（Karina Eversley）意识到出了问题。她心想，这不正常，于是迅速召集了一个专家团队，准备向卢卡提问。液体的量增加了吗？卢卡说不准。他确定那是水吗？当他伸出舌头去舔头盔里漂浮的几滴水时，尝到了金属的味道。

Mission Control made the call to terminate the spacewalk early. Luca and Chris had to split up to follow their tethers, which were routed in opposite directions. To get around an antenna, Luca flipped over. Suddenly, he couldn’t see clearly or breathe through his nose—globs of water were covering his eyes and filling his nostrils. The water was continuing to accumulate, and if it reached his mouth he could drown. His only hope was to navigate quickly back to the airlock. As the sun set, Luca was surrounded by darkness, with only a small headlight to guide him. Then his comms went down, too—he couldn’t hear himself or anyone else speak.

任务控制中心提前终止了太空行走。卢卡和克里斯不得不分头行动，沿着反方向的系绳行走。为了绕过天线，卢卡翻了个身。突然，他看不清东西，也无法用鼻子呼吸——水珠覆盖了他的眼睛，灌满了鼻孔。水还在不断积聚，如果水流到嘴里，他可能会溺水身亡。他唯一的希望就是尽快返回气闸舱。夕阳西下，卢卡被黑暗包围，只有一盏小小的头灯指引方向。然后他的通讯也断了——他听不见自己说话，也听不见别人说话。

Luca managed to find his way back to the outer hatch of the airlock, using his memory and the tension in his tether. He was still in grave danger: before he could remove his helmet, he would have to wait for Chris to close the hatch and repressurize the airlock. For several agonizing minutes of silence, it was unclear whether he would survive. When it was finally safe to remove his helmet, a quart and a half of water was in it, but Luca was alive. Months later, the incident would be called the “ scariest wardrobe malfunction in NASA history.”

卢卡凭借记忆和系绳的拉力，设法回到了气闸舱的外舱口。他仍然处于极度危险之中：在他摘下头盔之前，必须等克里斯关上舱口，重新给气闸舱加压。在几分钟令人痛苦的沉默中，他能否生还尚不确定。终于可以安全地摘下头盔时，头盔里积满了一夸脱半的水，但卢卡还活着。几个月后，这起事件被称为“NASA历史上最可怕的服装故障”。

The technical updates followed swiftly. The spacesuit engineers traced the leak to a fan/pump/separator, which they replaced moving forward. They also added a breathing tube that works like a snorkel and a pad to absorb water inside the helmet. Yet the biggest error wasn’t technical—it was human.

技术更新也迅速跟进。宇航服工程师追踪到泄漏点位于一个风扇/泵/分离器上，并立即更换了它们。他们还增加了一个类似通气管的呼吸管和一个用于吸收头盔内水分的垫子。然而，最大的错误并非技术问题，而是人为失误。

When Luca had returned from his first spacewalk a week earlier, he had noticed some droplets of water in his helmet. He and Chris assumed they were the result of a leak in the bag that provided drinking water in his suit, and the crew in Houston agreed. Just to be safe, they replaced the bag, but that was the end of the discussion.

一周前，卢卡完成首次太空行走返回时，发现头盔里有一些水滴。他和克里斯猜测，这是宇航服饮用水袋漏水造成的，休斯顿的宇航员也同意这一猜测。为了安全起见，他们更换了饮用水袋，但讨论就此结束。

The space station chief engineer, Chris Hansen, led the eventual investigation into what had gone wrong with Luca’s suit. “The occurrence of minor amounts of water in the helmet was normalized,” Chris told me. In the space station community, the “perception was that drink bags leak, which led to an acceptance that it was a likely explanation without digging deeper into it.”

空间站总工程师克里斯·汉森最终领导了对卢卡宇航服故障原因的调查。“头盔里少量进水的情况很正常，”克里斯告诉我。空间站内部“普遍认为是饮料袋漏水，所以大家就接受了这个可能性，而没有深入探究。”

Luca’s scare wasn’t the first time that NASA’s failure at rethinking had proven disastrous. In 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded after a catastrophically shallow analysis of the risk that circular gaskets called O-rings could fail. Although this had been identified as a launch constraint, NASA had a track record of overriding it in prior missions without any problems occurring. On an unusually cold launch day, the O-ring sealing the rocket booster joints ruptured, allowing hot gas to burn through the fuel tank, killing all seven Challenger astronauts.

卢卡的恐慌并非NASA第一次未能反思并导致灾难性的后果。1986年，挑战者号航天飞机在对圆形垫圈（称为O形圈）可能失效的风险进行极其肤浅的分析后爆炸。尽管这被认为是发射过程中的限制因素，但NASA在之前的任务中曾多次克服这一限制，且没有出现任何问题。在一个异常寒冷的发射日，密封火箭助推器接头的O形圈破裂，导致热气体烧穿燃料箱，挑战者号上的七名宇航员全部遇难。

In 2003, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated under similar circumstances. After takeoff, the team on the ground noticed that some foam had fallen from the ship, but most of them assumed it wasn’t a major issue since it had happened in past missions without incident. They failed to rethink that assumption and instead started discussing what repairs would be done to the ship to reduce the turnaround time for the next mission. The foam loss was, in fact, a critical issue: the damage it caused to the wing’s leading edge let hot gas leak into the shuttle’s wing upon reentry into the atmosphere. Once again, all seven astronauts lost their lives.

2003年，哥伦比亚号航天飞机在类似情况下解体。起飞后，地面团队注意到一些泡沫从航天飞机上脱落，但大多数人认为这不是什么大问题，因为在过去的任务中也发生过类似的情况，没有发生任何意外。他们没有重新思考这个假设，而是开始讨论如何对航天飞机进行维修，以缩短下次任务的周转时间。事实上，泡沫脱落是一个关键问题：它对机翼前缘造成的损坏导致航天飞机重返大气层时热气泄漏到机翼内。七名宇航员再次全部遇难。

Rethinking is not just an individual skill. It’s a collective capability, and it depends heavily on an organization’s culture. NASA had long been a prime example of a performance culture: excellence of execution was the paramount value. Although NASA accomplished extraordinary things, they soon became victims of overconfidence cycles. As people took pride in their standard operating procedures, gained conviction in their routines, and saw their decisions validated through their results, they missed opportunities for rethinking.

反思并非只是一项个人技能，而是一项集体能力，并且很大程度上取决于组织文化。NASA长期以来一直是绩效文化的典范：卓越的执行力是其至高无上的价值。尽管NASA取得了非凡的成就，但他们很快就陷入了过度自信的怪圈。当人们为标准化的运营流程感到自豪，对日常工作充满信心，并看到自己的决策通过结果得到验证时，他们错失了反思的机会。

Rethinking is more likely to happen in a learning culture, where growth is the core value and rethinking cycles are routine. In learning cultures, the norm is for people to know what they don’t know, doubt their existing practices, and stay curious about new routines to try out. Evidence shows that in learning cultures, organizations innovate more and make fewer mistakes. After studying and advising change initiatives at NASA and the Gates Foundation, I’ve learned that learning cultures thrive under a particular combination of psychological safety and accountability.

在学习型文化中，反思更有可能发生，因为在这种文化中，成长是核心价值，反思周期是常态。在学习型文化中，人们了解未知，质疑现有做法，并对尝试新的惯例保持好奇心，这很正常。有证据表明，在学习型文化中，组织创新更多，错误更少。在研究并为美国国家航空航天局 (NASA) 和盖茨基金会的变革计划提供咨询后，我了解到，学习型文化在心理安全感和责任感的特定组合下蓬勃发展。

I ERR, THEREFORE I LEARN

我犯错，因此我学习

Years ago, an engineer turned management professor named Amy Edmondson became interested in preventing medical errors. She went into a hospital and surveyed its staff about the degree of psychological safety they experienced in their teams—could they take risks without the fear of being punished? Then she collected data on the number of medical errors each team made, tracking serious outcomes like potentially fatal doses of the wrong medication. She was surprised to find that the more psychological safety a team felt, the higher its error rates.

几年前，一位名叫艾米·埃德蒙森（Amy Edmondson）的工程师出身的管理学教授对预防医疗事故产生了兴趣。她走进一家医院，对员工进行了一项调查，了解他们在团队中感受到的心理安全程度——他们能否在不担心受到惩罚的情况下承担风险？随后，她收集了每个团队医疗事故数量的数据，并追踪了诸如服用错误药物导致致命剂量等严重后果。她惊讶地发现，团队感受到的心理安全程度越高，其失误率就越高。

It appeared that psychological safety could breed complacency. When trust runs deep in a team, people might not feel the need to question their colleagues or double-check their own work.

心理安全似乎会滋生自满情绪。当团队中建立起深厚的信任时，人们可能就不会觉得有必要质疑同事或反复检查自己的工作。

But Edmondson soon recognized a major limitation of the data: the errors were all self-reported. To get an unbiased measure of mistakes, she sent a covert observer into the units. When she analyzed those data, the results flipped: psychologically safe teams reported more errors, but they actually made fewer errors. By freely admitting their mistakes, they were then able to learn what had caused them and eliminate them moving forward. In psychologically unsafe teams, people hid their mishaps to avoid penalties, which made it difficult for anyone to diagnose the root causes and prevent future problems. They kept repeating the same mistakes.

但埃德蒙森很快意识到数据的一个主要局限性：所有错误均为员工自我报告。为了获得客观的失误数据，她派了一名秘密观察员进入这些单位。当她分析这些数据时，结果却截然相反：心理安全的团队报告的错误更多，但实际上犯的错误更少。通过坦诚地承认错误，他们能够了解错误的原因，并在今后的工作中不断消除这些错误。而在心理不安全的团队中，人们会隐瞒自己的失误以避免受到惩罚，这使得任何人都难以诊断出根本原因并防止未来出现问题。他们不断地重复同样的错误。

Since then, research on psychological safety has flourished. When I was involved in a study at Google to identify the factors that distinguish teams with high performance and well-being, the most important differentiator wasn’t who was on the team or even how meaningful their work was. What mattered most was psychological safety.

从那时起，心理安全研究蓬勃发展。我参与谷歌的一项研究，旨在找出高绩效和高幸福感团队的差异因素。研究发现，最重要的差异因素并非团队成员，甚至并非他们的工作意义重大。真正重要的是心理安全。

Over the past few years, psychological safety has become a buzzword in many workplaces. Although leaders might understand its significance, they often misunderstand exactly what it is and how to create it. Edmondson is quick to point out that psychological safety is not a matter of relaxing standards, making people comfortable, being nice and agreeable, or giving unconditional praise. It’s fostering a climate of respect, trust, and openness in which people can raise concerns and suggestions without fear of reprisal. It’s the foundation of a learning culture.

过去几年，“心理安全”已成为许多职场热门词汇。尽管领导者或许理解其重要性，但他们往往误解了它究竟是什么以及如何创造它。埃德蒙森迅速指出，心理安全并非放松标准、让员工感到舒适、友善亲切或给予无条件赞扬。它在于营造一种尊重、信任和开放的氛围，让人们可以提出顾虑和建议，而不必担心遭到报复。它是学习型文化的基础。

In performance cultures, the emphasis on results often undermines psychological safety. When we see people get punished for failures and mistakes, we become worried about proving our competence and protecting our careers. We learn to engage in self-limiting behavior, biting our tongues rather than voicing questions and concerns. Sometimes that’s due to power distance: we’re afraid of challenging the big boss at the top. The pressure to conform to authority is real, and those who dare to deviate run the risk of backlash. In performance cultures, we also censor ourselves in the presence of experts who seem to know all the answers—especially if we lack confidence in our own expertise.

在绩效文化中，对结果的重视往往会损害心理安全感。当我们看到人们因失败和错误而受到惩罚时，我们就会担心如何证明自己的能力，如何保住自己的职业生涯。我们学会了自我设限，闭口不谈，不愿提出问题和担忧。有时，这是权力距离造成的：我们害怕挑战最高层的大老板。顺从权威的压力是真实存在的，敢于突破常规的人会面临遭到强烈反对的风险。在绩效文化中，我们也会在那些似乎无所不知的专家面前自我审查——尤其是在我们对自己的专业知识缺乏信心的情况下。

A lack of psychological safety was a persistent problem at NASA. Before the Challenger launch, some engineers did raise red flags but were silenced by managers; others were ignored and ended up silencing themselves. After the Columbia launch, an engineer asked for clearer photographs to inspect the damage to the wing, but managers didn’t supply them. In a critical meeting to evaluate the condition of the shuttle after takeoff, the engineer didn’t speak up.

缺乏心理安全感一直是NASA的一个长期问题。在挑战者号发射前，一些工程师确实提出了警告，但被管理层噤声；其他人则被忽视，最终也只能保持沉默。哥伦比亚号发射后，一位工程师要求提供更清晰的照片来检查机翼的损坏情况，但管理层没有提供。在一次评估航天飞机起飞后状况的关键会议上，这位工程师保持沉默。

About a month before that Columbia launch, Ellen Ochoa became the deputy director of flight crew operations. In 1993, Ellen had made history by becoming the first Latina in space. Now, the first flight she supported in a management role had ended in tragedy. After breaking the news to the space station crew and consoling the family members of the fallen astronauts, she was determined to figure out how she could personally help to prevent this kind of disaster from ever happening again.

哥伦比亚号航天飞机发射前约一个月，艾伦·奥乔亚（Ellen Ochoa）出任飞行机组运营副主管。1993年，艾伦创造了历史，成为首位进入太空的拉丁裔女性。如今，她作为管理职位支持的首次飞行却以悲剧告终。在向空间站机组人员通报了这一消息并慰问了遇难宇航员的家属后，她决心找到个人力量，防止此类灾难再次发生。

Ellen recognized that at NASA, the performance culture was eroding psychological safety. “People pride themselves on their engineering expertise and excellence,” she told me. “They fear their expertise will be questioned in a way that’s embarrassing to them. It’s that basic fear of looking like a fool, asking questions that people just dismiss, or being told you don’t know what you’re talking about.” To combat that problem and nudge the culture toward learning, she started carrying a 3 × 5 note card in her pocket with questions to ask about every launch and important operational decision. Her list included:

艾伦意识到，NASA的绩效文化正在侵蚀员工的心理安全感。“人们以自己的工程专业知识和卓越成就为荣，”她告诉我。“他们担心自己的专业知识会受到质疑，从而让自己感到尴尬。这种恐惧源于一种基本的恐惧，害怕自己看起来像个傻瓜，害怕问一些别人会直接忽略的问题，或者害怕别人说你根本不懂你在说什么。”为了解决这个问题，并推动NASA的文化向学习型转变，她开始在口袋里放一张3×5英寸的卡片，上面写着每次发射和重要运营决策时要问的问题。她的清单包括：

What leads you to that assumption? Why do you think it is correct? What might happen if it’s wrong?

是什么让你得出这个假设？你为什么认为它是正确的？如果它错了，会发生什么？
What are the uncertainties in your analysis?

您的分析中存在哪些不确定性？
I understand the advantages of your recommendation. What are the disadvantages?

我了解您建议的优点。缺点是什么？

A decade later, though, the same lessons about rethinking would have to be relearned in the context of spacewalk suits. As flight controllers first became aware of the droplets of water in Luca Parmitano’s helmet, they made two faulty assumptions: the cause was the drink bag, and the effect was inconsequential. It wasn’t until the second spacewalk, when Luca was in actual danger, that they started to question whether those assumptions were wrong.

然而，十年后，在太空行走服的背景下，同样的反思教训也需要重新学习。当飞行控制员第一次注意到卢卡·帕米塔诺头盔上的水滴时，他们做出了两个错误的假设：水滴是水袋造成的，而且其影响无关紧要。直到第二次太空行走，卢卡真正面临危险时，他们才开始质疑这些假设是否错误。

When engineer Chris Hansen took over as the manager of the extravehicular activity office, he inaugurated a norm of posing questions like Ellen’s: “All anybody would’ve had to ask is, ‘ How do you know the drink bag leaked?’ The answer would’ve been, ‘Because somebody told us.’ That response would’ve set off red flags. It would’ve taken ten minutes to check, but nobody asked. It was the same for Columbia . Boeing came in and said, ‘This foam, we think we know what it did.’ If somebody had asked how they knew, nobody could’ve answered that question.”

当工程师克里斯·汉森接任舱外活动办公室经理时，他开创了提出类似艾伦的问题的常态：“任何人只要问一句，‘你怎么知道饮料袋漏了？’答案就会是，‘因为有人告诉我们了。’这样的回答会引发警觉。检查需要十分钟，但没人问。哥伦比亚号也是一样。波音公司进来后说，‘这种泡沫，我们认为我们知道它做了什么。’如果有人问他们是怎么知道的，没人能回答这个问题。”

How do you know? It’s a question we need to ask more often, both of ourselves and of others. The power lies in its frankness. It’s nonjudgmental—a straightforward expression of doubt and curiosity that doesn’t put people on the defensive. Ellen Ochoa wasn’t afraid to ask that question, but she was an astronaut with a doctorate in engineering, serving in a senior leadership role. For too many people in too many workplaces, the question feels like a bridge too far. Creating psychological safety is easier said than done, so I set out to learn about how leaders can establish it.

你是怎么知道的？我们需要更频繁地问这个问题，无论是问自己还是问他人。它的力量在于坦诚。它不带评判——直接表达怀疑和好奇，不会让人产生防御心理。艾伦·奥乔亚并不害怕提出这个问题，但她是一位拥有工程学博士学位的宇航员，担任着高级领导职务。对于太多职场中的太多人来说，这个问题似乎遥不可及。创造心理安全感说起来容易做起来难，所以我开始学习领导者如何建立它。

SAFE AT HOME GATES

家门口的安全

When I first arrived at the Gates Foundation, people were whispering about the annual strategy reviews. It’s the time when program teams across the foundation meet with the cochairs—Bill and Melinda Gates—and the CEO to give progress reports on execution and collect feedback. Although the foundation employs some of the world’s leading experts in areas ranging from eradicating disease to promoting educational equity, these experts are often intimidated by Bill’s knowledge base, which seems impossibly broad and deep. What if he spots a fatal flaw in my work? Will it be the end of my career here?

我刚到盖茨基金会时，人们都在悄悄谈论年度战略评估。这是基金会各项目团队与联合主席比尔和梅琳达·盖茨以及首席执行官开会汇报执行进度并收集反馈意见的时候。尽管基金会聘请了一些在从根除疾病到促进教育公平等领域的世界顶尖专家，但这些专家常常被比尔的知识库所吓倒，因为他的知识库似乎博大精深，令人难以置信。如果他发现我的工作中存在致命缺陷怎么办？这会是我职业生涯的终结吗？

A few years ago, leaders at the Gates Foundation reached out to see if I could help them build psychological safety. They were worried that the pressure to present airtight analyses was discouraging people from taking risks. They often stuck to tried-and-true strategies that would make incremental progress rather than daring to undertake bold experiments that might make a bigger dent in some of the world’s most vexing problems.

几年前，盖茨基金会的领导们联系我，希望我帮助他们建立心理安全感。他们担心，提交严谨分析的压力会阻碍人们承担风险。他们常常固守那些循序渐进、屡试不爽的策略，而不敢进行大胆的实验，因为这些实验可能会对世界上一些最棘手的问题产生更大的影响。

The existing evidence on creating psychological safety gave us some starting points. I knew that changing the culture of an entire organization is daunting, while changing the culture of a team is more feasible. It starts with modeling the values we want to promote, identifying and praising others who exemplify them, and building a coalition of colleagues who are committed to making the change.

现有的关于创造心理安全感的证据给了我们一些起点。我知道改变整个组织的文化是艰巨的，而改变一个团队的文化则更可行。首先，我们要树立我们想要推广的价值观，识别并表彰那些践行这些价值观的人，并建立一个致力于改变的同事联盟。

The standard advice for managers on building psychological safety is to model openness and inclusiveness. Ask for feedback on how you can improve, and people will feel safe to take risks. To test whether that recommendation would work, I launched an experiment with a doctoral student, Constantinos Coutifaris. In multiple companies, we randomly assigned some managers to ask their teams for constructive criticism. Over the following week, their teams reported higher psychological safety, but as we anticipated, it didn’t last. Some managers who asked for feedback didn’t like what they heard and got defensive. Others found the feedback useless or felt helpless to act on it, which discouraged them from continuing to seek feedback and their teams from continuing to offer it.

关于管理者建立心理安全感的标准建议是树立开放包容的榜样。寻求改进的反馈，人们就会感到安心，敢于冒险。为了测试这项建议是否有效，我与博士生康斯坦丁诺斯·库蒂法里斯（Constantinos Coutifaris）开展了一项实验。在多家公司，我们随机指派一些管理者向团队征求建设性批评意见。在接下来的一周里，他们的团队报告了更高的心理安全感，但正如我们预期的那样，这种感觉并没有持续下去。一些寻求反馈的管理者不喜欢他们听到的内容，并采取了防御性措施。另一些人则认为反馈毫无用处，或者感到无力采取行动，这使得他们不愿继续寻求反馈，他们的团队也不愿继续提供反馈。

Another group of managers took a different approach, one that had less immediate impact in the first week but led to sustainable gains in psychological safety a full year later. Instead of asking them to seek feedback, we had randomly assigned those managers to share their past experiences with receiving feedback and their future development goals. We advised them to tell their teams about a time when they benefited from constructive criticism and to identify the areas that they were working to improve now.

另一组管理者采取了不同的方法，这种方法在第一周的效果不如前者，但在一年后，心理安全感得到了持续的提升。我们没有要求他们主动寻求反馈，而是随机安排这些管理者分享他们过去接受反馈的经历以及未来的发展目标。我们建议他们向团队讲述自己从建设性批评中受益的经历，并指出他们目前正在努力改进的领域。

By admitting some of their imperfections out loud, managers demonstrated that they could take it—and made a public commitment to remain open to feedback. They normalized vulnerability, making their teams more comfortable opening up about their own struggles. Their employees gave more useful feedback because they knew where their managers were working to grow. That motivated managers to create practices to keep the door open: they started holding “ask me anything” coffee chats, opening weekly one-on-one meetings by asking for constructive criticism, and setting up monthly team sessions where everyone shared their development goals and progress.

通过大声承认自身的一些不足，管理者们展现出他们能够接受这些不足，并公开承诺将保持对反馈的开放态度。他们将脆弱性视为常态，让团队更乐于敞开心扉，分享自身的困境。员工们也提供了更多有用的反馈，因为他们了解管理者在哪些方面正在努力提升。这促使管理者们制定了一些措施来保持开放的氛围：他们开始举办“问我任何事”的咖啡聊天，每周举行一对一会议，征求建设性的批评意见，并每月举办团队会议，让每个人都分享自己的发展目标和进展。

Creating psychological safety can’t be an isolated episode or a task to check off on a to-do list. When discussing their weaknesses, many of the managers in our experiment felt awkward and anxious at first. Many of their team members were surprised by that vulnerability and unsure of how to respond. Some were skeptical: they thought their managers might be fishing for compliments or cherry-picking comments that made them look good. It was only over time—as managers repeatedly demonstrated humility and curiosity—that the dynamic changed.

建立心理安全感并非孤立事件，也不是待办事项清单上的一项任务。我们实验中的许多管理者在讨论自身弱点时，一开始都感到尴尬和焦虑。他们的许多团队成员对这种脆弱性感到惊讶，不知该如何回应。有些人对此心存疑虑：他们认为管理者可能在寻求赞美，或挑选一些让自己看起来不错的评论。只是随着时间的推移——随着管理者不断展现出谦逊和好奇心——这种状态才得以改变。

At the Gates Foundation, I wanted to go a step further. Instead of just having managers open up with their own teams about how they had previously been criticized, I wondered what would happen if senior leaders shared their experiences across the entire organization. It dawned on me that I had a memorable way to make that happen.

在盖茨基金会，我想更进一步。与其让管理者们向自己的团队敞开心扉，讲述他们之前受到的批评，我思考着，如果高层领导们能在整个组织内分享他们的经历，会发生什么。我突然意识到，我有一个令人难忘的方法来实现这一点。

A few years earlier, our MBA students at Wharton decided to create a video for their annual comedy show. It was inspired by “Mean Tweets,” the late-night segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in which celebrities read cruel tweets about themselves out loud. Our version was Mean Reviews, where faculty members read harsh comments from student course evaluations. “This is possibly the worst class I’ve ever taken in my life ,” one professor read, looking defeated before saying, “Fair enough.” Another read, “This professor is a b*tch. But she’s a nice b*tch,” adding with chagrin: “That’s sweet.” One of my own was “You remind me of a Muppet.” The kicker belonged to a junior faculty member: “Prof acts all down with pop culture, but secretly thinks Ariana Grande is a font in Microsoft Word.”

几年前，我们沃顿商学院的MBA学生决定为他们的年度喜剧节目制作一个视频。灵感来自《吉米·坎摩尔直播秀！》的深夜片段“恶毒推文”，其中明星们大声朗读关于自己的恶意推文。我们的版本是“恶毒评论”，其中教员们会宣读学生课程评估中的尖刻评论。“这可能是我这辈子上过的最差的课，”一位教授读道，一脸沮丧，然后说，“够公平的。”另一位教授读道：“这位教授是个婊子。但她是个好婊子，”懊恼地补充道：“真贴心。”我自己的一个视频是“你让我想起了布偶”。最精彩的是一位初级教员说的：“教授对流行文化百般嘲讽，但私下里却认为爱莉安娜·格兰德只是微软Word里的字体。”

I made it a habit to show that video in class every fall, and afterward the floodgates would open. Students seemed to be more comfortable sharing their criticisms and suggestions for improvement after seeing that although I take my work seriously, I don’t take myself too seriously.

我养成了每年秋季在课堂上播放这段视频的习惯，之后学生们的学习热情就如潮水般涌来。学生们看到我认真对待工作，却又不把自己看得太重要，似乎更愿意分享他们的批评和改进建议。

I sent the video to Melinda Gates, asking if she thought something similar might help with psychological safety in her organization. She not only said yes; she challenged the entire executive leadership team to participate and volunteered to be the first to take the hot seat. Her team compiled criticisms from staff surveys, printed them on note cards, and had her react in real time in front of a camera. She read one employee’s complaint that she was like Mary F***ing Poppins—the first time anyone could remember hearing Melinda curse—and explained how she was working on making her imperfections more visible.

我把视频发给了梅琳达·盖茨，问她是否认为类似的措施有助于提升组织中的心理安全感。她不仅表示同意，还鼓励整个高管团队参与其中，并自愿成为第一个坐上热座的人。她的团队收集了员工调查中的批评意见，打印在便签上，并让她在镜头前实时做出反应。她读了一位员工的抱怨，说她就像玛丽·波平斯——这是人们记忆中第一次听到梅琳达骂人——并解释了她正在如何努力让自己的缺点更容易被看到。

To test the impact of her presentation, we randomly assigned one group of employees to watch Melinda engage with the tough comments, a second to watch a video of her talking about the culture she wanted to create in more general terms, and a third to serve as a pure control group. The first group came away with a stronger learning orientation—they were inspired to recognize their shortcomings and work to overcome them. Some of the power distance evaporated—they were more likely to reach out to Melinda and other senior leaders with both criticism and compliments. One employee commented:

为了测试梅琳达演讲的效果，我们随机分配了一组员工观看梅琳达应对尖锐批评的演讲，第二组员工观看她以更概括的方式阐述她想要打造的企业文化的视频，第三组员工作为纯粹的对照组。第一组员工的学习倾向更强——他们受到激励，认识到自身的不足并努力克服。权力差距有所缩小——他们更愿意向梅琳达和其他高层领导提出批评和赞扬。一位员工评论道：

In that video Melinda did something that I’ve not yet seen happen at the foundation: she broke through the veneer. It happened for me when she said, “I go into so many meetings where there are things I don’t know.” I had to write that down because I was shocked and grateful at her honesty. Later, when she laughed, like really belly-laughed, and then answered the hard comments, the veneer came off again and I saw that she was no less of Melinda Gates, but actually, a whole lot more of Melinda Gates.

在那段视频里，梅琳达做了一件我从未在基金会见过的事情：她打破了伪装。当她说“我参加了很多会议，其中有些事情我并不了解”时，我感到震撼。我不得不把这句话记下来，因为我对她的坦诚感到震惊和感激。后来，当她开怀大笑，开怀大笑，然后回答那些尖锐的问题时，伪装再次被揭开，我看到她不仅不像梅琳达·盖茨，实际上，她更像梅琳达·盖茨了。

It takes confident humility to admit that we’re a work in progress. It shows that we care more about improving ourselves than proving ourselves. * If that mindset spreads far enough within an organization, it can give people the freedom and courage to speak up.

承认我们仍在不断进步，需要自信而谦逊的态度。这表明我们更在意提升自我，而非证明自己。* 如果这种心态在组织内得到充分传播，就能赋予人们畅所欲言的自由和勇气。

But mindsets aren’t enough to transform a culture. Although psychological safety erases the fear of challenging authority, it doesn’t necessarily motivate us to question authority in the first place. To build a learning culture, we also need to create a specific kind of accountability—one that leads people to think again about the best practices in their workplaces.

但仅仅心态并不足以改变一种文化。虽然心理安全感可以消除挑战权威的恐惧，但它并不一定能激励我们质疑权威。为了构建学习型文化，我们还需要创造一种特定的问责制——一种引导人们重新思考职场最佳实践的问责制。

THE WORST THING ABOUT BEST PRACTICES

最佳实践的最糟糕的地方

In performance cultures, people often become attached to best practices. The risk is that once we’ve declared a routine the best, it becomes frozen in time. We preach about its virtues and stop questioning its vices, no longer curious about where it’s imperfect and where it could improve. Organizational learning should be an ongoing activity, but best practices imply it has reached an endpoint. We might be better off looking for better practices.

在绩效文化中，人们常常执着于最佳实践。风险在于，一旦我们宣称某种惯例是最好的，它就会被时间冻结。我们宣扬它的优点，不再质疑它的缺点，不再好奇它哪里不完美，哪里可以改进。组织学习应该是一项持续的活动，但最佳实践意味着它已经到达终点。我们或许应该寻找更好的实践。

At NASA, although teams routinely debriefed after both training simulations and significant operational events, what sometimes stood in the way of exploring better practices was a performance culture that held people accountable for outcomes . Every time they delayed a scheduled launch, they faced widespread public criticism and threats to funding. Each time they celebrated a flight that made it into orbit, they were encouraging their engineers to focus on the fact that the launch resulted in a success rather than on the faulty processes that could jeopardize future launches. That left NASA rewarding luck and repeating problematic practices, failing to rethink what qualified as an acceptable risk. It wasn’t for a lack of ability. After all, these were rocket scientists. As Ellen Ochoa observes, “When you are dealing with people’s lives hanging in the balance, you rely on following the procedures you already have. This can be the best approach in a time-critical situation, but it’s problematic if it prevents a thorough assessment in the aftermath.”

在NASA，尽管团队在训练模拟和重大运营事件后都会定期进行汇报，但有时阻碍探索更佳实践的，是那种要求员工对结果负责的绩效文化。每次他们推迟预定的发射，都会面临广泛的公众批评和资金威胁。每次他们庆祝一次飞行进入轨道，都会鼓励工程师专注于发射成功这一事实，而不是关注可能危及未来发射的缺陷流程。这使得NASA只能侥幸取胜，重复出现问题的做法，而没有重新思考什么是可接受的风险。这并不是因为能力不足。毕竟，他们是火箭科学家。正如艾伦·奥乔亚所观察到的：“当你面对人们生命危在旦夕时，你依赖于遵循现有的程序。在时间紧迫的情况下，这可能是最好的方法，但如果它妨碍了事后彻底的评估，那就有问题了。”

Focusing on results might be good for short-term performance, but it can be an obstacle to long-term learning. Sure enough, social scientists find that when people are held accountable only for whether the outcome was a success or failure, they are more likely to continue with ill-fated courses of action. Exclusively praising and rewarding results is dangerous because it breeds overconfidence in poor strategies, incentivizing people to keep doing things the way they’ve always done them. It isn’t until a high-stakes decision goes horribly wrong that people pause to reexamine their practices.

关注结果或许对短期绩效有益，但可能阻碍长期学习。果然，社会科学家发现，当人们只对结果的成功或失败负责时，他们更有可能继续采取注定失败的行动。只赞扬和奖励结果很危险，因为它会滋生对糟糕策略的过度自信，激励人们继续按照自己一贯的方式行事。直到一个高风险的决策出了大问题，人们才会停下来重新审视自己的做法。

We shouldn’t have to wait until a space shuttle explodes or an astronaut nearly drowns to determine whether a decision was successful. Along with outcome accountability, we can create process accountability by evaluating how carefully different options are considered as people make decisions. A bad decision process is based on shallow thinking. A good process is grounded in deep thinking and rethinking, enabling people to form and express independent opinions. Research shows that when we have to explain the procedures behind our decisions in real time, we think more critically and process the possibilities more thoroughly.

我们不应该等到航天飞机爆炸或宇航员险些溺亡才去判断一个决策是否成功。除了结果问责，我们还可以评估人们在做决策时对不同选项的考量程度，从而建立过程问责。糟糕的决策过程基于肤浅的思考。而好的决策过程则建立在深度思考和反思之上，使人们能够形成并表达独立的观点。研究表明，当我们必须实时解释决策背后的过程时，我们会更具批判性地思考，并更彻底地处理各种可能性。

Process accountability might sound like the opposite of psychological safety, but they’re actually independent. Amy Edmondson finds that when psychological safety exists without accountability, people tend to stay within their comfort zone, and when there’s accountability but not safety, people tend to stay silent in an anxiety zone. When we combine the two, we create a learning zone. People feel free to experiment—and to poke holes in one another’s experiments in service of making them better. They become a challenge network.

流程问责听起来可能与心理安全截然相反，但实际上它们是相互独立的。艾米·埃德蒙森发现，当心理安全感存在而问责制缺失时，人们往往会待在舒适区；而当问责制缺失而心理安全感缺失时，人们往往会在焦虑区保持沉默。当我们将两者结合起来时，就创造了一个学习区。人们可以自由地进行实验，并找出彼此实验中的漏洞，从而改进实验。他们形成了一个挑战网络。

One of the most effective steps toward process accountability that I’ve seen is at Amazon, where important decisions aren’t made based on simple PowerPoint presentations. They’re informed by a six-page memo that lays out a problem, the different approaches that have been considered in the past, and how the proposed solutions serve the customer. At the start of the meeting, to avoid groupthink, everyone reads the memo silently. This isn’t practical in every situation, but it’s paramount when choices are both consequential and irreversible. Long before the results of the decision are known, the quality of the process can be evaluated based on the rigor and creativity of the author’s thinking in the memo and in the thoroughness of the discussion that ensues in the meeting.

我所见过的实现流程问责制最有效的举措之一是亚马逊，那里的重要决策并非基于简单的PowerPoint演示文稿。他们通过一份长达六页的备忘录来制定决策，这份备忘录详细阐述了问题所在、过去考虑过的不同方法，以及提出的解决方案如何服务于客户。会议开始时，为了避免群体思维，每个人都会默读备忘录。这并非在所有情况下都适用，但当决策既重要又不可逆转时，这一点至关重要。早在决策结果揭晓之前，就可以根据备忘录作者思维的严谨性和创造性，以及会议讨论的彻底性来评估流程的质量。

In learning cultures, people don’t stop keeping score. They expand the scorecard to consider processes as well as outcomes:

在学习型文化中，人们不会停止记录成绩。他们会扩展记分卡，不仅考虑结果，也考虑过程：

Even if the outcome of a decision is positive, it doesn’t necessarily qualify as a success. If the process was shallow, you were lucky. If the decision process was deep, you can count it as an improvement: you’ve discovered a better practice. If the outcome is negative, it’s a failure only if the decision process was shallow. If the result was negative but you evaluated the decision thoroughly, you’ve run a smart experiment.

即使决策结果是积极的，也不一定算成功。如果决策过程比较浅显，那你很幸运。如果决策过程比较深入，那你可以算作一种进步：你发现了一种更好的做法。如果结果是消极的，那么只有当决策过程比较浅显时，它才算失败。如果结果是消极的，但你对决策进行了彻底的评估，那么你进行了一次聪明的实验。

The ideal time to run those experiments is when decisions are relatively inconsequential or reversible. In too many organizations, leaders look for guarantees that the results will be favorable before testing or investing in something new. It’s the equivalent of telling Gutenberg you’d only bankroll his printing press once he had a long line of satisfied customers—or announcing to a group of HIV researchers that you’d only fund their clinical trials after their treatments worked.

进行这些实验的理想时机是决策相对无关紧要或可逆的时候。在太多组织中，领导者在测试或投资新事物之前，总是寻求结果令人满意的保证。这就好比告诉古腾堡，只有当他拥有一大批满意的客户时，你才会资助他的印刷机——或者告诉一群艾滋病研究人员，只有当他们的疗法有效后，你才会资助他们的临床试验。

Requiring proof is an enemy of progress. This is why companies like Amazon use a principle of disagree and commit. As Jeff Bezos explained it in an annual shareholder letter, instead of demanding convincing results, experiments start with asking people to make bets. “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it?” The goal in a learning culture is to welcome these kinds of experiments, to make rethinking so familiar that it becomes routine.

要求证据是进步的敌人。这就是为什么像亚马逊这样的公司奉行“不同意，但承诺”的原则。正如杰夫·贝佐斯在年度股东信中所解释的那样，实验不是要求令人信服的结果，而是从要求人们打赌开始。“听着，我知道我们在这件事上意见不一，但你愿意和我一起赌一把吗？”学习型文化的目标是欢迎这类实验，让反思变得习以为常，成为一种常规做法。

Process accountability isn’t just a matter of rewards and punishments. It’s also about who has decision authority. In a study of California banks, executives often kept approving additional loans to customers who’d already defaulted on a previous one. Since the bankers had signed off on the first loan, they were motivated to justify their initial decision. Interestingly, banks were more likely to identify and write off problem loans when they had high rates of executive turnover. If you’re not the person who greenlit the initial loan, you have every incentive to rethink the previous assessment of that customer. If they’ve defaulted on the past nineteen loans, it’s probably time to adjust. Rethinking is more likely when we separate the initial decision makers from the later decision evaluators.

流程问责不仅仅是奖惩的问题，也关乎谁拥有决策权。一项针对加州银行的研究表明，高管们经常会继续批准那些已经拖欠前一笔贷款的客户的新贷款。由于银行家们已经批准了第一笔贷款，他们有动力去证明自己最初的决定是合理的。有趣的是，当高管流动率高时，银行更有可能识别并核销问题贷款。如果你不是批准第一笔贷款的人，你完全有动力重新考虑之前对该客户的评估。如果他们已经拖欠了过去的19笔贷款，那么现在可能是时候进行调整了。当我们将最初的决策者与后来的决策评估者分开时，他们更有可能进行重新思考。

© Hayley Lewis, Sketchnote summary of *A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure.* Illustration drawn May 2020. London, United Kingdom. Copyright © 2020 by HALO Psychology Limited.

© Hayley Lewis，《失败原因谱》速写笔记摘要。插图绘制于2020年5月，英国伦敦。版权所有 © 2020 HALO Psychology Limited。

For years, NASA had failed to create that separation. Ellen Ochoa recalls that traditionally “the same managers who were responsible for cost and schedule were the ones who also had the authority to waive technical requirements. It’s easy to talk yourself into something on a launch day.”

多年来，NASA一直未能实现这种分离。艾伦·奥乔亚回忆说，传统上“负责成本和进度的经理也有权放弃技术要求。在发射当天，你很容易说服自己接受某件事。”

The Columbia disaster reinforced the need for NASA to develop a stronger learning culture. On the next space shuttle flight, a problem surfaced with the sensors in an external engine tank. It reoccurred several more times over the next year and a half, but it didn’t create any observable problems. In 2006, on the day of a countdown in Houston, the whole mission management team held a vote. There was overwhelming consensus that the launch should go forward. Only one outlier had voted no: Ellen Ochoa.

哥伦比亚号航天飞机的灾难强化了NASA培养更强学习文化的必要性。在下一次航天飞机飞行中，外部发动机油箱的传感器出现了问题。在接下来的一年半里，这个问题又重复出现了几次，但并没有造成任何明显的问题。2006年，在休斯顿的发射倒计时当天，整个任务管理团队进行了投票。压倒性的一致意见是发射应该继续进行。只有一个人投了反对票：艾伦·奥乔亚。

In the old performance culture, Ellen might’ve been afraid to vote against the launch. In the emerging learning culture, “it’s not just that we’re encouraged to speak up. It’s our responsibility to speak up,” she explains. “Inclusion at NASA is not only a way to increase innovation and engage employees; it directly affects safety since people need to feel valued and respected in order to be comfortable speaking up.” In the past, the onus would’ve been on her to prove it was not safe to launch. Now the onus was on the team to prove it was safe to launch. That meant approaching their expertise with more humility, their decision with more doubt, and their analysis with more curiosity about the causes and potential consequences of the problem.

在旧的绩效文化中，艾伦或许不敢投票反对发射。但在新兴的学习文化中，“我们不仅被鼓励畅所欲言，更有责任畅所欲言，”她解释道。“在NASA，包容性不仅是提升创新和员工敬业度的一种方式，它还直接影响安全，因为人们需要感受到被重视和尊重，才能坦然发言。” 过去，她需要证明发射不安全。现在，团队需要证明发射是安全的。这意味着，团队需要以更谦逊的态度对待他们的专业知识，以更多的质疑态度对待他们的决定，以更多的好奇心去分析问题的原因和潜在后果。

After the vote, Ellen received a call from the NASA administrator in Florida, who expressed surprising interest in rethinking the majority opinion in the room. “I’d like to understand your thinking,” he told her. They went on to delay the launch. “Some people weren’t happy we didn’t launch that day,” Ellen reflects. “But people did not come up to me and berate me in any way or make me feel bad. They didn’t take it out on me personally.” The following day all the sensors worked properly, but NASA ended up delaying three more launches over the next few months due to intermittent sensor malfunctions. At that point, the manager of the shuttle program called for the team to stand down until they identified the root cause. Eventually they figured out that the sensors were working fine; it was the cryogenic environment that was causing a faulty connection between the sensors and computers.

投票结束后，艾伦接到了美国宇航局佛罗里达州局长的电话，这位局长出人意料地表示，他有意重新考虑在场大多数人的意见。“我想了解一下你的想法，”他告诉艾伦。之后，他们推迟了发射。“有些人对我们那天没能发射感到不满，”艾伦回忆道，“但他们并没有走到我面前，用任何方式斥责我，或者让我难过。他们没有把气撒在我身上。”第二天，所有传感器都恢复了正常工作，但由于传感器间歇性故障，NASA在接下来的几个月里又推迟了三次发射。这时，航天飞机项目经理要求团队暂停工作，直到找到根本原因。最终，他们发现传感器工作正常，是低温环境导致了传感器和计算机之间的连接故障。

Ellen became the deputy director and then the director of the Johnson Space Center, and NASA went on to execute nineteen consecutive successful space shuttle missions before retiring the program. In 2018, when Ellen retired from NASA, a senior leader approached her to tell her how her vote to delay the launch in 2006 had affected him. “I never said anything to you twelve years ago,” he said, but “it made me rethink how I approached launch days and whether I’m doing the right thing.”

艾伦先是担任约翰逊航天中心副主任，后来又升任主任。NASA在退役前，连续成功执行了19次航天飞机任务。2018年，艾伦从NASA退休时，一位高层领导找到她，告诉她2006年投票推迟发射对他的影响。“十二年前我没跟你说过什么，”他说，“但那件事让我重新思考我对待发射日的态度，以及我的做法是否正确。”

We can’t run experiments in the past; we can only imagine the counterfactual in the present. We can wonder whether the lives of fourteen astronauts would have been saved if NASA had gone back to rethink the risks of O-ring failures and foam loss before it was too late. We can wonder why those events didn’t make them as careful in reevaluating problems with spacesuits as they had become with space shuttles. In cultures of learning, we’re not weighed down with as many of these questions—which means we can live with fewer regrets.

我们无法在过去进行实验；我们只能想象当下的反事实。我们可以思考，如果NASA在为时已晚之前重新考虑O形圈失效和泡沫流失的风险，14名宇航员的生命是否能够得救。我们可以思考，为什么这些事件没有让他们像重新评估航天飞机那样谨慎地重新评估宇航服的问题。在学习型文化中，我们不会被那么多这些问题所困扰——这意味着我们可以少一些遗憾。

PART IV

第四部分

Conclusion

结论

CHAPTER 11 第十一章

Escaping Tunnel Vision

摆脱隧道视野

Reconsidering Our Best-Laid Career and Life Plans

重新考虑我们精心制定的职业和生活计划

A malaise set in within a couple hours of my arriving. I thought getting a job might help. It turns out I have a lot of relatives in Hell, and, using connections, I became the assistant to a demon who pulls people’s teeth out. It wasn’t actually a job, more of an internship. But I was eager. And at first it was kind of interesting. After a while, though, you start asking yourself: Is this what I came to Hell for, to hand different kinds of pliers to a demon?

—Jack Handey

抵达后没过几个小时，我就感到一阵不适。我以为找份工作或许能帮上忙。结果发现我有很多亲戚在地狱，于是利用关系，我成了一个拔牙恶魔的助手。这其实算不上工作，更像是实习。但我当时很渴望。一开始还挺有意思的。但过了一会儿，你开始问自己：我来地狱就是为了把各种钳子递给恶魔吗？——杰克·汉迪

W hat do you want to be when you grow up? As a kid, that was my least favorite question. I dreaded conversations with adults because they always asked it—and no matter how I replied, they never liked my answer. When I said I wanted to be a superhero, they laughed. My next goal was to make the NBA, but despite countless hours of shooting hoops on my driveway, I was cut from middle school basketball tryouts three years in a row. I was clearly aiming too high.

你长大后想做什么？小时候，这是我最不喜欢问的问题。我害怕和大人聊天，因为他们总是问这个问题——而且无论我怎么回答，他们总是不喜欢我的答案。当我说我想成为超级英雄时，他们笑了。我的下一个目标是进入NBA，但尽管在自家车道上投篮无数次，我还是连续三年在中学篮球选拔赛中落选。我的目标显然太高了。

In high school, I became obsessed with springboard diving and decided I wanted to become a diving coach. Adults scoffed at that plan: they told me I was aiming too low. In my first semester of college, I decided to major in psychology, but that didn’t open any doors—it just gave me a few to close. I knew I didn’t want to be a therapist (not patient enough) or a psychiatrist (too squeamish for med school). I was still aimless, and I envied people who had a clear career plan.

高中时，我痴迷于跳板跳水，并决定成为一名跳水教练。大人们嘲笑我的计划：他们说我的目标太低了。大学第一学期，我决定主修心理学，但这并没有打开任何机会——只是让我关上了几扇门。我知道我不想成为治疗师（我不够耐心）或精神科医生（我太胆小，不适合读医学院）。我仍然漫无目的，我羡慕那些有清晰职业规划的人。

From the time he was in kindergarten, my cousin Ryan knew exactly what he wanted to be when he grew up. Becoming a doctor wasn’t just the American dream—it was the family dream. Our great-grandparents emigrated from Russia and barely scraped by. Our grandmother was a secretary, and our grandfather worked in a factory, but it wasn’t enough to support five children, so he worked a second job delivering milk. Before his kids were teenagers, he had taught them to drive the milk truck so they could finish their 4:00 a.m. delivery cycle before the school day and workday started. When none of their children went on to med school (or milk delivery), my grandparents hoped our generation would bring the prestige of a Dr. Grant to the family.

我的表弟瑞安从幼儿园起就清楚地知道自己长大后想做什么。成为一名医生不仅仅是一个美国梦，更是我们全家的梦想。我们的曾祖父母从俄罗斯移民过来，勉强维持生计。祖母是秘书，祖父在工厂工作，但收入不足以养活五个孩子，所以他兼职送牛奶。孩子们还没到十几岁，他就教他们开牛奶车，这样他们就能在早上四点上学和上班之前完成送牛奶的循环。当他们的孩子都没能考上医学院（或送牛奶）时，我的祖父母希望我们这一代能为家族带来格兰特医生那样的威望。

The first seven grandchildren didn’t become doctors. I was the eighth, and I worked multiple jobs to pay for college and to keep my options open. They were proud when I ended up getting my doctorate in psychology, but they still hoped for a real doctor. For the ninth grandchild, Ryan, who arrived four years after me, an M.D. was practically preordained.

前七个孙辈都没能成为医生。我是第八个，为了支付大学学费和维持生计，我打过好几份工。当我最终获得心理学博士学位时，他们感到很自豪，但他们仍然希望我成为一名真正的医生。对于比我晚四年出生的第九个孙辈瑞安来说，获得医学博士学位几乎是命中注定的。

Ryan checked all the right boxes: along with being precocious, he had a strong work ethic. He set his sights on becoming a neurosurgeon. He was passionate about the potential to help people and ready to persist in the face of whatever obstacles would come into his path.

瑞安具备了所有条件：他不仅早熟，而且有很强的职业道德。他立志成为一名神经外科医生。他热衷于帮助他人，并准备好克服前进道路上的任何障碍。

When Ryan was looking at colleges, he came to visit me. As we started talking about majors, he expressed a flicker of doubt about the premed track and asked if he should study economics instead. There’s a term in psychology that captures Ryan’s personality: blirtatiousness. Yep, that’s an actual research concept, derived from the combination of blurting and flirting. When “blirters” meet people, their responses tend to be fast and effusive. They typically score high in extraversion and impulsiveness—and low in shyness and neuroticism. Ryan could push himself to study for long hours, but it drained him. Drawn to something more active and social, he toyed with the idea of squeezing in an economics major along with premed, but abandoned that idea when he got to college. Gotta stay on track.

瑞恩在考虑大学的时候来看我。我们开始聊专业的时候，他对医学预科的学习方向略有疑虑，问我是不是应该学经济学。心理学里有个词很能概括瑞恩的性格：轻浮。没错，这的确是一个研究概念，源于“脱口而出”和“调情”的结合。“轻浮”的人与人相处时，反应往往迅速而热情。他们的外向性和冲动性通常得分较高，而害羞性和神经质得分较低。瑞恩可以强迫自己长时间学习，但这会让他精疲力竭。他更喜欢更积极主动、更具社交性的东西，所以他曾考虑过在读医学预科的同时，再挤出时间学习经济学专业，但上了大学后就放弃了这个想法。总得坚持下去。

Ryan sailed through the premed curriculum and became a teaching assistant for undergrads while he was still an undergrad himself. When he showed up at exam review sessions and saw how stressed the students were, he refused to start covering the material until they stood up and danced. When he was accepted to an Ivy League medical school, he asked me if he should do a joint M.D.–M.B.A. program. He hadn’t lost his interest in business, but he was afraid to divide his attention. Gotta stay on track.

Ryan 顺利完成了医学预科课程，并在自己还是本科生的时候就成为了一名本科生助教。当他参加考试复习课时，看到学生们压力很大，他拒绝开始讲解，直到他们站起来跳舞。当他被常春藤盟校医学院录取时，他问我是否应该参加一个医学博士和工商管理硕士（M.D.-MBA）联合项目。他并没有失去对商业的兴趣，但他害怕分散注意力。必须坚持自己的方向。

In his last year of med school, Ryan dutifully applied to neurosurgery residencies. It takes a focused brain to slice into the brain of another human. He wasn’t sure if he was cut out for it—or if the career would leave any space for him to have a life. He wondered if he should start a health-care company instead, but when he was admitted to Yale, he opted for the residency. Gotta stay on track.

医学院最后一年，瑞恩认真地申请了神经外科住院医师培训。切开另一个人的大脑需要一颗专注的大脑。他不确定自己是否适合这份工作，或者这份工作是否能给他留下一些自由的空间。他考虑过是否应该创办一家医疗保健公司，但被耶鲁大学录取后，他选择了住院医师培训。他必须坚持自己的方向。

Partway through his residency, the grueling hours and the intense focus began to take their toll, and Ryan burned out. He felt that if he died that very day, no one in the system would really care or even notice. He regularly suffered from the heartache of losing patients and the headache of dealing with abusive attending surgeons, and there was no end in sight. Although it was his childhood dream and our grandparents’ dream, his work left little time for anything else. The sheer exhaustion left him questioning whether he should quit.

住院实习进行到一半时，高强度的工作和高度的专注开始让他精疲力竭。他觉得，即使自己当天就去世了，系统里也不会有人真正关心，甚至不会注意到。他经常承受着失去病人的痛苦，以及应对粗暴的主治外科医生的头痛，而且看不到尽头。虽然这是他儿时的梦想，也是我们祖父母的梦想，但他的工作让他几乎没有时间做其他事情。极度的疲惫让他开始思考是否应该辞职。

Ryan decided that he couldn’t give up. He had gone too far to change course, so he finished the seven-year neurosurgery residency. When he submitted the paperwork for his credentials, the hospital denied him because he had placed the dates on his résumé on the right instead of the left. He was so fed up with the system that, out of principle, he refused to move them. After winning that battle with bureaucracy, he added another feather to his cap, doing an eighth year of a fellowship in complex, minimally invasive spinal surgery.

瑞安决定不能放弃。他已经走得太远，无法改变方向，所以他完成了为期七年的神经外科住院医师培训。当他提交资格证书申请文件时，医院拒绝了他，因为他把简历上的日期写在了右边而不是左边。他对这个体制感到厌倦，出于原则，他拒绝改变日期。在赢得这场与官僚主义的斗争后，他又获得了另一份荣誉，完成了第八年的复杂微创脊柱外科专科培训。

Today Ryan is a neurosurgeon at a major medical center. In his midthirties, he’s still in debt from student loans more than a decade after graduating from med school. Even though he enjoys helping people and caring for patients, the long hours and red tape undercut his enthusiasm. He tells me that if he could do it over, he would have gone a different route. I’ve often wondered what it would have taken to convince him to rethink his chosen line of work—and what he truly wanted out of a career.

如今，瑞安是一家大型医疗中心的神经外科医生。他已年逾三旬，医学院毕业十余年后，仍然背负着学生贷款的债务。尽管他热爱帮助他人、照顾病人，但漫长的工作时间和繁琐的手续却削弱了他的热情。他告诉我，如果可以重来，他会选择一条不同的路。我常常想，究竟需要怎样的条件，才能让他重新思考自己选择的职业——以及他真正想要的职业是什么。

We all have notions of who we want to be and how we hope to lead our lives. They’re not limited to careers; from an early age, we develop ideas about where we’ll live, which school we’ll attend, what kind of person we’ll marry, and how many kids we’ll have. These images can inspire us to set bolder goals and guide us toward a path to achieve them. The danger of these plans is that they can give us tunnel vision, blinding us to alternative possibilities. We don’t know how time and circumstances will change what we want and even who we want to be, and locking our life GPS onto a single target can give us the right directions to the wrong destination.

我们每个人都有自己的理想，以及希望如何生活的想法。这些想法不仅限于职业；从很小的时候起，我们就对未来居住在哪里、就读哪所学校、与什么样的人结婚以及生几个孩子有了清晰的规划。这些愿景可以激励我们设定更大胆的目标，并指引我们走向实现目标的道路。但这些计划的危险之处在于，它们会让我们视野狭窄，看不到其他的可能性。我们不知道时间和环境会如何改变我们的愿望，甚至不知道我们想成为什么样的人。将人生的GPS锁定在一个目标上，可能会让我们沿着正确的方向走向错误的目的地。

GOING INTO FORECLOSURE

丧失抵押品赎回权

When we dedicate ourselves to a plan and it isn’t going as we hoped, our first instinct isn’t usually to rethink it. Instead, we tend to double down and sink more resources in the plan. This pattern is called escalation of commitment. Evidence shows that entrepreneurs persist with failing strategies when they should pivot, NBA general managers and coaches keep investing in new contracts and more playing time for draft busts, and politicians continue sending soldiers to wars that didn’t need to be fought in the first place. Sunk costs are a factor, but the most important causes appear to be psychological rather than economic. Escalation of commitment happens because we’re rationalizing creatures, constantly searching for self-justifications for our prior beliefs as a way to soothe our egos, shield our images, and validate our past decisions.

当我们全身心投入一项计划，但进展不如预期时，我们的第一反应通常不是重新考虑。相反，我们往往会加倍投入，在计划中投入更多资源。这种模式被称为“承诺升级”。有证据表明，企业家在应该转型时却坚持失败的策略；NBA总经理和教练们继续为选秀失败的球员投资新合同和更多上场时间；政客们继续派遣士兵参战那些原本就不该打的战争。沉没成本固然是一个因素，但最重要的原因似乎是心理因素，而非经济因素。承诺升级的发生，是因为我们都是理性的生物，不断为先前的信念寻找自我辩护，以此来安抚我们的自尊心、保护我们的形象，并验证我们过去的决定。

Escalation of commitment is a major factor in preventable failures. Ironically, it can be fueled by one of the most celebrated engines of success: grit. Grit is the combination of passion and perseverance, and research shows that it can play an important role in motivating us to accomplish long-term goals. When it comes to rethinking, though, grit may have a dark side. Experiments show that gritty people are more likely to overplay their hands in roulette and more willing to stay the course in tasks at which they’re failing and success is impossible. Researchers have even suggested that gritty mountaineers are more likely to die on expeditions, because they’re determined to do whatever it takes to reach the summit. There’s a fine line between heroic persistence and foolish stubbornness. Sometimes the best kind of grit is gritting our teeth and turning around.

承诺的升级是可预防失败的一个主要因素。讽刺的是，它可以由最著名的成功引擎之一——毅力——所推动。毅力是激情和毅力的结合，研究表明，它在激励我们实现长期目标方面发挥着重要作用。然而，当谈到反思时，毅力可能也有其阴暗面。实验表明，毅力强的人在轮盘赌中更容易玩高手，更愿意坚持完成他们正在失败和不可能成功的任务。研究人员甚至表示，毅力强的登山者更容易在探险中丧生，因为他们决心不惜一切代价登顶。英雄般的坚持和愚蠢的固执之间只有一线之隔。有时，最好的毅力就是咬紧牙关，转身离开。

Ryan escalated his commitment to medical training for sixteen years. If he had been less tenacious, he might have changed tracks sooner. Early on, he had fallen victim to what psychologists call identity foreclosure—when we settle prematurely on a sense of self without enough due diligence, and close our minds to alternative selves.

瑞恩十六年来不断提升着自己对医学训练的投入。如果他不那么执着，或许早就改变了方向。早年，他就陷入了心理学家所说的“身份排斥”——我们过早地接受了某种自我认知，却没有经过充分的审慎审视，从而对其他自我关闭了心扉。

In career choices, identity foreclosure often begins when adults ask kids: what do you want to be when you grow up? Pondering that question can foster a fixed mindset about work and self. “I think it’s one of the most useless questions an adult can ask a child,” Michelle Obama writes. “ What do you want to be when you grow up? As if growing up is finite. As if at some point you become something and that’s the end.” *

在职业选择中，身份认同丧失通常始于成年人问孩子：你长大后想做什么？反复思考这个问题会培养一种关于工作和自我的固定思维模式。“我认为这是成年人问孩子最没用的问题之一，”米歇尔·奥巴马写道。“你长大后想做什么？仿佛成长是有限的。仿佛到了某个时候，你就会成为某种人，然后就结束了。”*

Some kids dream too small. They foreclose on following in family footsteps and never really consider alternatives. You probably know some people who faced the opposite problem. They dreamed too big, becoming attached to a lofty vision that wasn’t realistic. Sometimes we lack the talent to pursue our callings professionally, leaving them unanswered; other times there’s little hope that our passions can pay the bills. “You can be anything you wanna be?!” the comedian Chris Rock quipped. “ Tell the kids the truth. . . . You can be anything you’re good at . . . as long as they’re hiring.”

有些孩子的梦想太小。他们不愿追随家人的脚步，也从未真正考虑过其他选择。你可能认识一些面临相反问题的人。他们梦想过大，执着于不切实际的远大愿景。有时，我们缺乏追求职业梦想的天赋，导致梦想无法实现；有时，我们几乎不可能用热情来支付生活费用。“你想成为什么都可以？！”喜剧演员克里斯·洛克打趣道。“告诉孩子们真相……只要他们还在招人，你就能成为任何你擅长的职业。”

Even if kids get excited about a career path that does prove realistic, what they thought was their dream job can turn out to be a nightmare. Kids might be better off learning about careers as actions to take rather than as identities to claim. When they see work as what they do rather than who they are, they become more open to exploring different possibilities.

即使孩子们对一条切实可行的职业道路感到兴奋，他们原本以为的梦想工作也可能变成一场噩梦。孩子们或许应该将职业视为需要采取行动而非需要宣称的身份。当他们将工作视为他们所做的事情而非他们自身时，他们会更乐于探索不同的可能性。

Although children are often fascinated by science from a young age, over the course of elementary school, they tend to lose interest and confidence in their potential to be scientists. Recent studies show that it’s possible to maintain their enthusiasm by introducing them to science differently. When second and third graders learned about “doing science” rather than “being scientists,” they were more excited about pursuing science. Becoming a scientist might seem out of reach, but the act of experimenting is something we can all try out. Even prekindergarten students express more interest in science when it’s presented as something we do rather than someone we are .

虽然孩子们通常从小就对科学着迷，但到了小学阶段，他们往往会对自己成为科学家的潜力失去兴趣和信心。最近的研究表明，通过不同的方式引导他们接触科学，可以保持他们的热情。当二三年级的学生学习“做科学”而不是“成为科学家”时，他们对追求科学的热情会更高。成为一名科学家似乎遥不可及，但实验本身是我们每个人都可以尝试的事情。即使是学龄前儿童，当科学以我们做的事情而不是我们是谁的形式呈现时，也会对它表现出更浓厚的兴趣。

Recently at dinner, our kids decided to go around the table to ask what everyone wanted to be when they grew up. I told them they didn’t need to choose one career; the average person ends up holding a dozen different jobs. They didn’t have to be one thing; they could do many things. They started brainstorming about all the things they love to do. Their lists ended up including designing Lego sets, studying space, creative writing, architecture, interior design, teaching gymnastics, photography, coaching soccer, and being a fitness YouTuber.

最近晚餐时，孩子们决定围坐在餐桌旁，问问大家长大后想做什么。我告诉他们，不必只选择一个职业；普通人最终会从事十几份不同的工作。他们不必只做一件事；他们可以做很多事情。他们开始集思广益，列出所有自己喜欢做的事情。最终，他们的清单包括设计乐高积木、研究太空、创意写作、建筑、室内设计、体操教学、摄影、足球教练，以及成为一名健身YouTuber。

Choosing a career isn’t like finding a soul mate. It’s possible that your ideal job hasn’t even been invented yet. Old industries are changing, and new industries are emerging faster than ever before: it wasn’t that long ago that Google, Uber, and Instagram didn’t exist. Your future self doesn’t exist right now, either, and your interests might change over time.

选择职业不像寻找灵魂伴侣。你的理想工作可能还没出现。旧行业正在变革，新兴行业也以前所未有的速度涌现：谷歌、Uber 和 Instagram 等巨头公司在不久前还不存在。你未来的自我也尚未出现，你的兴趣也可能随着时间而改变。

TIME FOR A CHECKUP

是时候检查一下了

We foreclose on all kinds of life plans. Once you’ve committed to one, it becomes part of your identity, making it difficult to de-escalate. Declaring an English major because you love to read, only to discover that you don’t enjoy the process of writing. Deciding to start college during a pandemic, only to conclude later that you should have considered a gap year. Gotta stay on track. Ending a romantic relationship because you don’t want kids, only to realize years down the road that you might after all.

我们放弃了各种各样的人生计划。一旦你下定决心，它就会成为你身份的一部分，很难放下。因为热爱阅读而选择英语专业，却发现自己并不喜欢写作的过程。疫情期间决定开始上大学，后来才发现早该考虑间隔年。必须坚持下去。因为不想要孩子而结束一段恋情，多年以后才意识到，你终究还是想要孩子。

Identity foreclosure can stop us from evolving. In a study of amateur musicians, those who had settled on music as a professional calling were more likely to ignore career advice from a trusted adviser over the course of the following seven years. They listened to their hearts and tuned out their mentors. In some ways, identity foreclosure is the opposite of an identity crisis: instead of accepting uncertainty about who we want to become, we develop compensatory conviction and plunge head over heels into a career path. I’ve noticed that the students who are the most certain about their career plans at twenty are often the ones with the deepest regrets by thirty. They haven’t done enough rethinking along the way. *

身份认同丧失会阻碍我们进步。一项针对业余音乐家的研究表明，那些将音乐作为职业使命的人，更有可能在接下来的七年里忽视来自值得信赖的顾问的职业建议。他们听从内心的声音，对导师的指导置之不理。从某种程度上来说，身份认同丧失与身份认同危机截然相反：我们不再接受自己想要成为什么样的人的不确定性，而是发展出一种补偿性的信念，一头扎进职业道路。我注意到，那些在二十岁时对自己的职业规划最确定的学生，往往在三十岁时后悔莫及。他们一路走来，没有进行足够的反思。*

Sometimes it’s because they’re thinking too much like politicians, eager to earn the approval of parents and peers. They become seduced by status, failing to see that no matter how much an accomplishment or affiliation impresses someone else, it’s still a poor choice if it depresses them. In other cases it’s because they’re stuck in preacher mode, and they’ve come to see a job as a sacred cause. And occasionally they pick careers in prosecutor mode, where they charge classmates with selling their souls to capitalism and hurl themselves into nonprofits in the hopes of saving the world.

有时，这是因为他们的思维方式太像政客，渴望赢得父母和同龄人的认可。他们被地位所诱惑，没有意识到无论一项成就或关系给别人留下了多么深刻的印象，如果让自己感到沮丧，那仍然是一个糟糕的选择。有时，这是因为他们陷入了传教士的模式，把工作视为神圣的事业。有时，他们会以检察官的模式选择职业，指责同学们向资本主义出卖灵魂，并投身非营利组织，希望拯救世界。

Sadly, they often know too little about the job—and too little about their evolving selves—to make a lifelong commitment. They get trapped in an overconfidence cycle, taking pride in pursuing a career identity and surrounding themselves with people who validate their conviction. By the time they discover it was the wrong fit, they feel it’s too late to think again. The stakes seem too high to walk away; the sacrifices of salary, status, skill, and time seem too great. For the record, I think it’s better to lose the past two years of progress than to waste the next twenty. In hindsight, identity foreclosure is a Band-Aid: it covers up an identity crisis, but fails to cure it.

可悲的是，他们往往对这份工作知之甚少，对不断发展的自我也知之甚少，以至于无法做出终身承诺。他们陷入了过度自信的怪圈，以追求职业身份为荣，身边都是认同他们信念的人。等到他们发现自己并不合适时，却觉得再三考虑已经太迟了。放弃这份工作似乎风险太高；薪水、地位、技能和时间的牺牲似乎太大了。坦白说，我认为宁愿放弃过去两年的进步，也不愿浪费接下来的二十年。事后看来，身份认同丧失就像一块创可贴：它掩盖了身份危机，却无法治愈它。

My advice to students is to take a cue from health-care professions. Just as they make appointments with the doctor and the dentist even when nothing is wrong, they should schedule checkups on their careers. I encourage them to put a reminder in their calendars to ask some key questions twice a year. When did you form the aspirations you’re currently pursuing, and how have you changed since then? Have you reached a learning plateau in your role or your workplace, and is it time to consider a pivot? Answering these career checkup questions is a way to periodically activate rethinking cycles. It helps students maintain humility about their ability to predict the future, contemplate doubts about their plans, and stay curious enough to discover new possibilities or reconsider previously discarded ones.

我给学生们的建议是借鉴医疗保健行业的经验。就像他们即使一切安好也会预约医生和牙医一样，他们也应该安排职业生涯的体检。我鼓励他们在日历上设置提醒，每年两次提出一些关键问题。你目前的追求是什么时候形成的？从那时起，你发生了哪些变化？你是否在你的角色或工作中遇到了学习瓶颈？是时候考虑转型了吗？回答这些职业体检问题是定期启动反思周期的一种方式。它可以帮助学生保持谦逊，相信自己有能力预测未来，反思对计划的疑虑，并保持足够的好奇心去发现新的可能性或重新考虑之前放弃的可能性。

I had one student, Marissa Shandell, who scored a coveted job at a prestigious consulting firm and planned on climbing up the ladder. She kept getting promoted early but found herself working around the clock. Instead of continuing to just grit and bear it, she and her husband had a career checkup conversation every six months, talking not just about the growth trajectory of their companies but also about the growth trajectory of their jobs. After being promoted to associate partner well ahead of schedule, Marissa realized she had reached a learning plateau (and a lifestyle plateau) and decided to pursue a doctorate in management. *

我有个学生叫玛丽莎·尚德尔，她在一家知名咨询公司找到了一份梦寐以求的工作，并计划步步高升。她经常提前晋升，但却发现自己不得不夜以继日地工作。她没有继续苦苦支撑，而是每六个月和丈夫进行一次职业评估，不仅讨论公司的发展轨迹，还讨论工作的发展轨迹。在提前晋升为助理合伙人后，玛丽莎意识到自己已经进入了学习平台期（以及生活方式的平台期），于是决定攻读管理学博士学位。*

Deciding to leave a current career path is often easier than identifying a new one. My favorite framework for navigating that challenge comes from a management professor, Herminia Ibarra. She finds that as people consider career choices and transitions, it helps to think like scientists. A first step is to entertain possible selves: identify some people you admire within or outside your field, and observe what they actually do at work day by day. A second step is to develop hypotheses about how these paths might align with your own interests, skills, and values. A third step is to test out the different identities by running experiments: do informational interviews, job shadowing, and sample projects to get a taste of the work. The goal is not to confirm a particular plan but to expand your repertoire of possible selves—which keeps you open to rethinking.

决定离开目前的职业道路往往比确定新的职业道路更容易。我最喜欢的应对这一挑战的框架来自管理学教授赫米尼亚·伊瓦拉（Herminia Ibarra）。她发现，当人们考虑职业选择和转型时，像科学家一样思考会有所帮助。第一步是考虑不同的自我：找出一些你在领域内外钦佩的人，观察他们每天在工作中实际做了什么。第二步是提出一些假设，看看这些道路如何与你的兴趣、技能和价值观相契合。第三步是通过实验来测试不同的自我身份：进行信息访谈、工作见习和样本项目，以体验工作。目标并非确认某个特定的计划，而是扩展你对各种可能的自我的认知——这会让你保持开放的心态，不断反思。

Checkups aren’t limited to careers—they’re relevant to the plans we make in every domain of our lives. A few years ago, a former student called for romantic advice. Caveat: I’m not that kind of psychologist. He’d been dating a woman for just over a year, and although it was the most fulfilling relationship he’d ever had, he was still questioning whether it was the right match. He had always imagined himself marrying a woman who was ambitious in her career or passionate about improving the world, and his girlfriend seemed less driven and more relaxed in her approach to life.

自我评估不仅限于职业生涯——它与我们在生活各个领域所做的规划息息相关。几年前，一位以前的学生来电咨询恋爱建议。需要注意的是：我不是那种心理学家。他和一个女人约会了一年多，虽然这是他经历过的最充实的一段感情，但他仍然怀疑这段感情是否合适。他一直幻想着自己能娶一个在事业上雄心勃勃，或者热衷于改善世界的女人，而他的女朋友似乎缺乏动力，对待生活的态度也更随意。

It was an ideal time for a checkup. I asked him how old he was when he formed that vision of a partner and how much he’d changed since then. He said he’d held it since he was a teenager and had never paused to rethink it. As we talked, he started to realize that if he and his girlfriend were happy together, ambition and passion might not be as important to him in a partner as they had been in the past. He came to understand that he was inspired by women who were highly motivated to succeed and serve because that was who he wanted to be.

这是个绝佳的反思时机。我问他几岁的时候形成了对伴侣的这种设想，以及从那以后他改变了多少。他说他从十几岁起就一直抱有这种想法，从未停下来重新思考过。在交谈中，他开始意识到，如果他和女友在一起很幸福，那么在选择伴侣时，雄心壮志和热情对他来说可能不像过去那么重要了。他逐渐明白，他受到了那些充满动力、渴望成功、服务他人的女性的启发，因为这正是他想要成为的样子。

Two and a half years later, he reached out with an update. He had decided to let go of his preconceived image of who his partner should be:

两年半后，他联系了我，告诉我最新情况。他决定放下自己对伴侣的先入为主的印象：

I decided to open up and talk to her about how she’s different from the person I’d imagined being with. Surprisingly, she told me the same thing! I wasn’t who she imagined she’d end up with either—she expected to end up with a guy who was more of a creative, someone who was more gregarious. We accepted it and moved on. I’m thrilled to have left my old ideas behind to make space for the full her and everything our relationship could bring.

我决定敞开心扉，跟她谈谈她和我想象中的那个人有什么不同。出乎意料的是，她也说了同样的话！我也不是她想象中的那个人——她期待着最终能遇到一个更有创造力、更合群的男人。我们接受了现实，继续前进。我很高兴能抛开旧有的想法，为她以及我们这段关系所能带来的一切腾出空间。

Just before the pandemic, he proposed to her, and they’re now engaged.

就在疫情爆发之前，他向她求婚，现在他们订婚了。

A successful relationship requires regular rethinking. Sometimes being considerate means reconsidering something as simple as our habits. Learning not to be fashionably late to everything. Retiring that wardrobe of ratty conference T-shirts. Rolling over to snore in the other direction. At other times being supportive means opening our minds to bigger life changes—moving to a different country, a different community, or a different job to support our partner’s priorities. In my student’s case, it meant rethinking who his fiancée would be, but also staying open to who she might become. She eventually switched jobs and became passionate about both her work and a personal cause of fighting educational inequity. When we’re willing to update our ideas of who our partners are, it can give them freedom to evolve and our relationships room to grow.

一段成功的感情需要我们经常反思。有时，体贴意味着重新审视一些简单的事情，比如我们的习惯。学会不去刻意迟到，不再穿那些破旧的会议T恤，不再翻身打呼噜。有时，支持意味着敞开心扉，接受更大的生活变化——搬到不同的国家、不同的社区，或者换一份工作，以支持伴侣的优先事项。就我学生的情况而言，这意味着重新思考他的未婚妻会是什么样子，同时也要对她可能成为的样子保持开放的心态。最终，她换了工作，对工作和对抗教育不平等的个人事业都充满了热情。当我们愿意更新对伴侣的认知时，他们就能自由地发展，我们的感情也能有发展的空间。

Whether we do checkups with our partners, our parents, or our mentors, it’s worth pausing once or twice a year to reflect on how our aspirations have changed. As we identify past images of our lives that are no longer relevant to our future, we can start to rethink our plans. That can set us up for happiness—as long as we’re not too fixated on finding it.

无论我们向伴侣、父母还是导师进行自我审视，每年都值得停下来反思一两次，反思一下我们的志向发生了怎样的变化。当我们发现过去的生活景象与未来不再相关时，我们就可以开始重新思考自己的计划。这能让我们获得幸福——只要我们不要过于执着于寻找它。

WHEN CHASING HAPPINESS CHASES IT AWAY

当追逐幸福却把它赶走时

When we think about how to plan our lives, there are few things that take priority over happiness. The kingdom of Bhutan has a Gross National Happiness index. In the United States, the pursuit of happiness is so prized that it’s one of the three unalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence. If we’re not careful, though, the pursuit of happiness can become a recipe for misery.

当我们思考如何规划人生时，很少有事情比幸福更重要。不丹王国有一个国民幸福总值指数。在美国，追求幸福被如此珍视，甚至被列为《独立宣言》中三项不可剥夺的权利之一。然而，如果我们不谨慎，追求幸福就可能变成痛苦的根源。

Psychologists find that the more people value happiness, the less happy they often become with their lives. It’s true for people who naturally care about happiness and for people who are randomly assigned to reflect on why happiness matters. There’s even evidence that placing a great deal of importance on happiness is a risk factor for depression. Why?

心理学家发现，人们越重视幸福，往往对生活的幸福感就越低。无论是天生关心幸福的人，还是被随机分配去思考幸福为何重要的人，都是如此。甚至有证据表明，过分重视幸福是导致抑郁症的一个风险因素。为什么呢？

One possibility is that when we’re searching for happiness, we get too busy evaluating life to actually experience it. Instead of savoring our moments of joy, we ruminate about why our lives aren’t more joyful. A second likely culprit is that we spend too much time striving for peak happiness, overlooking the fact that happiness depends more on the frequency of positive emotions than their intensity. A third potential factor is that when we hunt for happiness, we overemphasize pleasure at the expense of purpose. This theory is consistent with data suggesting that meaning is healthier than happiness, and that people who look for purpose in their work are more successful in pursuing their passions—and less likely to quit their jobs—than those who look for joy. While enjoyment waxes and wanes, meaning tends to last. A fourth explanation is that Western conceptions of happiness as an individual state leave us feeling lonely. In more collectivistic Eastern cultures, that pattern is reversed: pursuing happiness predicts higher well-being, because people prioritize social engagement over independent activities.

一种可能性是，当我们追寻幸福时，我们忙于评估生活，而无暇真正体验它。我们没有享受快乐的时刻，反而反复思考为什么我们的生活没有更加快乐。第二个可能的原因是，我们花费太多时间追求极致的幸福，而忽略了幸福更多地取决于积极情绪的频率而非强度这一事实。第三个潜在因素是，当我们追寻幸福时，我们过分强调愉悦而忽略了目标。这一理论与数据相符，这些数据表明意义比幸福更健康，并且在工作中寻找目标的人比那些追求快乐的人更容易追求自己的激情，也更不容易辞职。虽然快乐会时好时坏，但意义往往会持久。第四个解释是，西方人认为幸福是一种个体状态，这让我们感到孤独。在更具集体主义色彩的东方文化中，这种模式正好相反：追求幸福预示着更高的幸福感，因为人们优先考虑社交活动而不是独立活动。

Last fall a student stopped by my office hours for some advice. She explained that when she chose Wharton, she had focused too much on getting into the best school and too little on finding the best fit. She wished she had picked a college with a more carefree culture and a stronger sense of community. Now that she was clear on her values, she was considering a transfer to a school that would make her happier.

去年秋天，一位学生来我的办公室寻求建议。她解释说，当初选择沃顿商学院时，她过于注重进入最好的学校，而忽略了找到最适合自己的学校。她希望自己当初选择的是一所文化更自由、社区意识更强的大学。现在，她明确了自己的价值观，正在考虑转学到一所能让她更快乐的学校。

A few weeks later she told me that a moment in class had helped her rethink her plan. It wasn’t the research on happiness that we discussed, the values survey she took, or the decision-making activity we did. It was a comedy sketch I showed from Saturday Night Live.

几周后，她告诉我，课堂上的一个瞬间让她重新思考了自己的计划。那不是我们讨论的关于幸福感的研究，不是她做的价值观调查，也不是我们做的决策活动。而是我播放的《周六夜现场》里的一小段喜剧小品。

The scene stars Adam Sandler as a tour guide. In a mock commercial advertising his company’s Italian tours, he mentions that customer reviews sometimes express disappointment. He takes the opportunity to remind customers about what a vacation can and can’t do for them:

这一幕由亚当·桑德勒饰演导游。在一则模拟商业广告中，他为公司的意大利之旅做广告，提到顾客评论有时会表达失望。他借此机会提醒顾客，假期能为他们带来什么，不能为他们带来什么：

There’s a lot a vacation can do: help you unwind, see some different-looking squirrels, but it cannot fix deeper issues, like how you behave in group settings.

We can take you on a hike. We cannot turn you into someone who likes hiking.

Remember, you’re still gonna be you on vacation. If you are sad where you are, and then you get on a plane to Italy, the you in Italy will be the same sad you from before, just in a new place.

假期能带来很多好处：帮你放松，看看长相各异的松鼠，但它无法解决更深层次的问题，比如你在群体环境中的行为举止。我们可以带你去徒步旅行，但我们无法把你变成一个喜欢徒步旅行的人。记住，度假的你依然是你。如果你在当下感到难过，然后登上飞往意大利的飞机，在意大利的你依然是之前那个难过的人，只是身处一个陌生的地方。

© *Saturday Night Live* /NBC

©周六夜现场/NBC

When we pursue happiness, we often start by changing our surroundings. We expect to find bliss in a warmer climate or a friendlier dorm, but any joy that those choices bring about is typically temporary. In a series of studies, students who changed their environments by adjusting their living arrangements or course schedules quickly returned to their baseline levels of happiness. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, “ You can’t get away from yourself by moving from one place to another.” Meanwhile, students who changed their actions by joining a new club, adjusting their study habits, or starting a new project experienced lasting gains in happiness. Our happiness often depends more on what we do than where we are. It’s our actions—not our surroundings—that bring us meaning and belonging.

当我们追求幸福时，我们常常从改变周围环境开始。我们期望在更温暖的气候或更舒适的宿舍中找到幸福，但这些选择带来的快乐通常都是暂时的。在一系列研究中，通过调整生活安排或课程安排来改变环境的学生很快恢复了幸福感的基线水平。正如欧内斯特·海明威所写：“你无法通过搬家来摆脱自我。” 与此同时，通过加入新社团、调整学习习惯或开始新项目来改变自身行为的学生获得了持久的幸福感。我们的幸福往往更多地取决于我们做什么，而不是我们身在何处。赋予我们意义和归属感的是我们的行为——而不是我们周围的环境。

My student decided not to transfer. Instead of rethinking where she went to school, she would rethink how she spent her time. She might not be able to change the culture of an entire institution, but she could create a new subculture. She started doing weekly coffee chats with classmates and invited the ones who shared her interests and values over for weekly tea. A few months later, she reported that she had formed several close friendships and was thrilled with her decision to stay. The impact didn’t stop there: her tea gatherings became a tradition for welcoming students who felt out of place. Instead of transferring to a new community, they built their own microcommunity. They weren’t focusing on happiness—they were looking for contribution and connection.

我的学生决定不转学。与其重新思考自己在哪里上学，不如重新思考如何度过自己的时间。她或许无法改变整个学校的文化，但她可以创造一种新的亚文化。她开始每周与同学们一起喝咖啡聊天，并邀请那些与她兴趣和价值观相同的人每周来喝茶。几个月后，她报告说，她已经结识了几位亲密的朋友，并对自己留下的决定感到兴奋。影响远不止于此：她的茶会成为了欢迎那些感到格格不入的学生的传统。他们没有转学到一个新的社区，而是建立了自己的微型社区。他们不再关注幸福——他们寻求的是贡献和联系。

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF MEANING

生命、自由和意义的追求

To be clear, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to stay in a role, relationship, or place they hated unless they had no other alternatives. Still, when it comes to careers, instead of searching for the job where we’ll be happiest, we might be better off pursuing the job where we expect to learn and contribute the most.

需要明确的是，除非别无选择，否则我不会鼓励任何人继续留在自己讨厌的职位、关系或环境中。不过，说到职业，与其寻找能让我们感到最快乐的工作，不如追求那些我们期望学到最多东西、做出最多贡献的工作，这样或许会更好。

Psychologists find that passions are often developed, not discovered. In a study of entrepreneurs, the more effort they put into their startups, the more their enthusiasm about their businesses climbed each week. Their passion grew as they gained momentum and mastery. Interest doesn’t always lead to effort and skill; sometimes it follows them. By investing in learning and problem solving, we can develop our passions—and build the skills necessary to do the work and lead the lives we find worthwhile.

心理学家发现，激情往往是培养出来的，而不是发现出来的。一项针对创业者的研究表明，他们在创业上投入的努力越多，他们对事业的热情每周就越高涨。随着他们获得动力和精通，他们的热情也随之增长。兴趣并不总是会带来努力和技能；有时，兴趣会随之而来。通过投入学习和解决问题，我们可以培养激情，并掌握必要的技能，从而完成工作，过上我们认为有价值的生活。

As we get older, we become more focused on searching for meaning—and we’re most likely to find it in actions that benefit others. My favorite test of meaningful work is to ask: if this job didn’t exist, how much worse off would people be? It’s near midlife that this question often begins to loom large. At around this time, in both work and life, we feel we have more to give (and less to lose), and we’re especially keen to share our knowledge and skills with the next generation.

随着年龄的增长，我们越来越专注于寻找意义——而我们最有可能在造福他人的行为中找到意义。我最喜欢的测试是问自己：如果没有这份工作，人们的境况会变得多么糟糕？接近中年时，这个问题往往开始变得尤为突出。在这个时候，无论是在工作还是生活中，我们都觉得自己能给予的更多（而失去的更少），并且我们尤其渴望与下一代分享我们的知识和技能。

When my students talk about the evolution of self-esteem in their careers, the progression often goes something like this:

当我的学生谈论他们在职业生涯中自尊心的演变时，他们通常会这样描述：

Phase 1: I’m not important

第一阶段：我不重要

Phase 2: I’m important

第二阶段：我很重要

Phase 3: I want to contribute to something important

第三阶段：我想为重要的事情做出贡献

I’ve noticed that the sooner they get to phase 3, the more impact they have and the more happiness they experience. It’s left me thinking about happiness less as a goal and more as a by-product of mastery and meaning. “Those only are happy,” philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, “who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.”

我注意到，他们越早进入第三阶段，影响力就越大，体验到的幸福感也越多。这让我不再将幸福视为目标，而是将其视为掌控感和意义感的副产品。哲学家约翰·斯图尔特·密尔写道：“只有那些专注于自身幸福以外的目标的人，才会幸福；他们专注于他人的幸福，专注于人类的进步，甚至专注于某种艺术或追求，他们追求的不是手段，而是其本身的理想目标。如此一来，他们便会顺便找到幸福。”

Careers, relationships, and communities are examples of what scientists call open systems—they’re constantly in flux because they’re not closed off from the environments around them. We know that open systems are governed by at least two key principles: there are always multiple paths to the same end (equifinality), and the same starting point can be a path to many different ends (multifinality). We should be careful to avoid getting too attached to a particular route or even a particular destination. There isn’t one definition of success or one track to happiness.

职业、人际关系和社群都是科学家所说的开放系统的例子——它们不断变化，因为它们并非与周围环境隔绝。我们知道，开放系统至少受两个关键原则支配：通往同一终点的路径总是多条（等终点性），同一个起点可以通往许多不同的终点（多终点性）。我们应该小心，避免过于执着于某条特定的路线，甚至某个特定的终点。成功没有唯一的定义，通往幸福的路径也没有唯一的轨迹。

My cousin Ryan finally wound up rethinking his career arc. Five years into his neurosurgery residency, he did his own version of a career checkup and decided to scratch his entrepreneurial itch. He cofounded a fast-growing, venture-backed startup called Nomad Health, which creates a marketplace to match clinicians with medical facilities. He also advised several medical device startups, filed medical device patents, and is now working on multiple startups to improve health care. Looking back, he still regrets that he foreclosed so early on an identity as a neurosurgeon and escalated his commitment to that career.

我的表弟瑞恩最终重新思考了自己的职业规划。在神经外科住院医师培训五年后，他进行了一次自我职业评估，并决定满足自己的创业渴望。他与他人共同创办了一家快速增长、获得风险投资支持的初创公司，名为Nomad Health，该公司创建了一个将临床医生与医疗机构匹配的市场。他还为多家医疗器械初创公司提供咨询，申请了医疗器械专利，目前正致力于多家致力于改善医疗保健的初创公司。回想起来，他仍然后悔过早地放弃了神经外科医生的身份，并加大了对这一职业的投入。

At work and in life, the best we can do is plan for what we want to learn and contribute over the next year or two, and stay open to what might come next. To adapt an analogy from E. L. Doctorow, writing out a plan for your life “is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.”

无论是工作还是生活，我们能做的最好的事情就是规划好未来一两年想要学习和贡献的内容，并对接下来可能发生的一切保持开放的心态。借用E. L. 多克托罗的比喻，制定人生计划“就像在雾中夜里开车。你只能看到车灯照亮的地方，但你却能用这种方式完成整个旅程。”

We don’t have to upend our entire paths to rethink some of our plans. Some people are perfectly content with their fields of work but dissatisfied with their current roles. Others may be too risk averse to make a geographic move for a job or a partner. And many don’t have the luxury of making a pivot: being economically dependent on a job or emotionally attached to an extended family can limit the options available. Whether or not we have the opportunity or appetite for major changes in our lives, it’s still possible to make smaller adjustments that breathe new meaning into our days.

我们不必为了重新思考某些计划而彻底颠覆自己的人生轨迹。有些人对自己的工作领域非常满意，但对目前的角色并不满意。有些人可能过于厌恶风险，不愿为了工作或伴侣而迁居异地。许多人甚至没有机会做出改变：经济上依赖工作，或情感上依恋大家庭，这些都会限制我们可用的选择。无论我们是否有机会或意愿在生活中做出重大改变，我们仍然有可能做出一些细微的调整，为我们的生活注入新的意义。

My colleagues Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton find that in every line of work, there are people who become active architects of their own jobs. They rethink their roles through job crafting—changing their daily actions to better fit their values, interests, and skills. One of the places Amy and Jane studied job crafting was in the University of Michigan health-care system.

我的同事艾米·沃泽斯涅夫斯基（Amy Wrzesniewski）和简·达顿（Jane Dutton）发现，各行各业都有人积极地构建自己的工作。他们通过工作重塑来重新思考自己的角色——改变日常行为，使其更符合自己的价值观、兴趣和技能。艾米和简研究工作重塑的场所之一是密歇根大学的医疗保健系统。

If you visited a certain floor of the hospital, it wouldn’t be long before cancer patients told you how grateful they were for Candice Walker. Her mission was not only to protect their fragile immune systems—it was also to care for their fragile emotions. She called the chemotherapy center the House of Hope.

如果你去医院的某个楼层，很快就会有癌症患者告诉你，他们多么感激坎迪斯·沃克。她的使命不仅是保护他们脆弱的免疫系统，更要呵护他们脆弱的情绪。她把这个化疗中心称为“希望之家”。

Candice was often the first one to console families when their loved ones went through treatment; she showed up with bagels and coffee. She would make patients laugh by telling stories about her cats drinking her milk or showing them that she had accidentally put on one brown sock and one blue sock. One day she saw a patient on the floor of an elevator writhing in pain, and the staff members nearby weren’t sure what to do. Candice immediately took charge, rushed the woman into a wheelchair, and took her up in the elevator for urgent treatment. The patient later called her “my savior.”

当家人的亲人接受治疗时，坎迪斯总是第一个安慰他们；她总是带着百吉饼和咖啡出现。她会讲起她的猫喝她牛奶的故事，或者告诉他们她不小心穿了一只棕色袜子和一只蓝色袜子，逗得病人哈哈大笑。有一天，她看到一位病人在电梯里痛苦地扭动着身体，旁边的工作人员不知所措。坎迪斯立即挺身而出，把那位女士紧急抬上轮椅，带她乘电梯上楼接受紧急治疗。这位病人后来称她为“我的救星”。

Candice Walker wasn’t a doctor or a nurse. She wasn’t a social worker, either. She was a custodian. Her official job was to keep the cancer center clean.

坎迪斯·沃克既不是医生，也不是护士。她也不是社工。她是一名管理员。她的正式工作是保持癌症中心的清洁。

Candice and her fellow custodians were all hired to do the same job, but some of them ended up rethinking their roles. One cleaner on a long-term intensive care unit took it upon herself to regularly rearrange the paintings on the walls, hoping that a change of scenery might spark some awareness among patients in comas. When asked about it, she said, “ No, it’s not part of my job, but it’s part of me.”

坎迪斯和她的同事们都受雇从事同样的工作，但其中一些人最终重新思考了自己的角色。一位长期重症监护病房的清洁工主动承担起定期重新布置墙上绘画的任务，希望通过改变环境来唤起昏迷病人的关注。当被问及此事时，她说：“不，这不是我的工作，但它是我的一部分。”

Our identities are open systems, and so are our lives. We don’t have to stay tethered to old images of where we want to go or who we want to be. The simplest way to start rethinking our options is to question what we do daily.

我们的身份是一个开放的系统，我们的生活也是如此。我们不必被旧有的形象所束缚，比如我们想去哪里，想成为什么样的人。重新思考我们选择最简单的方法，就是反思我们每天所做的事情。

It takes humility to reconsider our past commitments, doubt to question our present decisions, and curiosity to reimagine our future plans. What we discover along the way can free us from the shackles of our familiar surroundings and our former selves. Rethinking liberates us to do more than update our knowledge and opinions—it’s a tool for leading a more fulfilling life.

谦卑之心才能重新审视我们过去的承诺，怀疑之心才能质疑我们当前的决定，好奇之心才能重新构想我们的未来计划。我们一路上的发现可以让我们摆脱熟悉环境和过去自我的束缚。反思不仅能让我们更新知识和观点，还能让我们拥有更充实的生活。

Epilogue

结语

“ What I believe” is a process rather than a finality.

—Emma Goldman

“我所相信的”是一个过程，而非最终结果。——艾玛·戈德曼

When reading fiction, my favorite part has always been the conclusion. As long as I can remember, whether I was devouring sci-fi like Ender’s Game or mystery like The Westing Game , the twist at the end wasn’t just the highlight of the story. It transformed the story, making me rethink everything I’d read before.

读小说的时候，我最喜欢的部分一直是结尾。从我记事起，无论是像《安德的游戏》这样的科幻小说，还是像《威斯汀的游戏》这样的悬疑小说，结尾的转折不仅仅是故事的亮点，它还改变了整个故事，让我重新思考之前读过的一切。

In writing about ideas, though, I’ve never liked conclusions. Can’t the final chapter just serve as the end? It’s a book, not a book report. If I had something else worth saying, I would’ve already said it. *

不过，在写想法的时候，我从来都不喜欢结论。最后一章难道不能就当做结尾吗？这是一本书，不是读书报告。如果我还有什么值得说的，我早就说了。*

What bothers me most about a conclusion is the finality. If a topic is important enough to deserve an entire book, it shouldn’t end. It should be open-ended.

结论最让我困扰的是它的终结性。如果一个话题重要到值得写一整本书，它就不应该结束。它应该是开放式的。

That’s an inherent challenge for Think Again . I don’t want the conclusion to bring closure. I want my thinking to keep evolving. To symbolize that openness, I decided to make the epilogue a blank page. Literally.

这对《再想想》来说是一个内在的挑战。我不希望结局只是个结束。我希望我的思考能够不断演变。为了象征这种开放性，我决定把尾声写成一张空白页。真的。

My challenge network unanimously rejected that concept. Two of my most insightful students convinced me that although it might represent an endpoint for me as a writer, it’s a starting point for you as a reader—a springboard to new thoughts and a bridge to new conversations. Then they proposed a way to honor the spirit of the book: I could take a cue from Ron Berger’s classroom and show some of my rethinking of the conclusion from one draft to the next.

我的挑战网络一致否决了这个主意。我的两个最有洞察力的学生说服我，虽然它可能代表着我作为作家的终点，但对你作为读者来说，它却是一个起点——一个通往新思想的跳板，一座通往新对话的桥梁。然后他们提出了一个尊重这本书精神的方法：我可以借鉴罗恩·伯杰的课堂，展示我对结论从一稿到下一稿的反思。

I loved the idea. * For a book about rethinking, it seemed delightfully meta. Like the Seinfeld coffee table book about coffee tables—or the time when Ryan Gosling wore a shirt with a photo of Macaulay Culkin, and Macaulay Culkin one-upped him by wearing a shirt with a picture of Ryan Gosling wearing that shirt. *

我喜欢这个主意。*对于一本关于反思的书来说，它看起来非常具有元叙事性。就像《宋飞传》里那本关于咖啡桌的书一样——或者像瑞恩·高斯林穿了一件印有麦考利·卡尔金照片的衬衫，而麦考利·卡尔金却穿了一件印有瑞恩·高斯林穿着那件衬衫照片的衬衫，胜过了他的那次经历。*

The conclusion seemed like the perfect place to show a few key moments of rethinking, but I still didn’t know what to cover. I went back to my challenge network, and they suggested one more way to synthesize key themes and provide an update on what I’m rethinking right now.

结论部分似乎是展现一些反思的关键时刻的绝佳位置，但我仍然不知道该写些什么。我回到我的挑战网络，他们建议我再写一种方式来整合关键主题，并更新我目前正在反思的内容。

The first thing that came to mind was a moment in the fact-checking process, when I learned that scientists have revised their thinking about the purported plumage of the tyrannosaurus family. If you were picturing a feathered T. rex in chapter 1, so was I, but the current consensus is that a typical T. rex was covered mostly in scales. If you’re devastated by that update, please flip to the index and look up joy of being wrong, the . Actually, I have some good news: there’s another tyrannosaur, the yutyrannus, that scientists believe was covered in vibrant feathers to stay cool. *

我首先想到的是核实事实的过程中，得知科学家们修改了他们对霸王龙家族传说羽毛的看法。如果你在第一章里想象的是一只长着羽毛的霸王龙，我也是，但目前的共识是，典型的霸王龙大部分被鳞片覆盖。如果你对这个更新感到震惊，请翻到索引，查找“犯错的喜悦”。实际上，我有个好消息：还有另一种霸王龙，羽王龙，科学家们认为它覆盖着鲜艳的羽毛是为了保持凉爽。*

Lately, I’ve been thinking again about how rethinking happens. For thousands of years, much of the rethinking that people did unfolded invisibly in groups over time. Before the printing press, a great deal of knowledge was transmitted orally. Human history was one long game of telephone, where each sender would remember and convey information differently, and each receiver would have no way of knowing how the story had changed. By the time an idea traveled across a land, it could be completely reimagined without anyone’s being aware of it. As more information began to be recorded in books and then newspapers, we could begin to track the different ways in which knowledge and beliefs evolved. Today, although we can see every revision made in Wikipedia, the individuals making the changes often wind up in edit wars, refusing to concede that others were right or that they were wrong. Codifying knowledge might help us track it, but it doesn’t necessarily lead us to open our minds.

最近，我又开始思考反思是如何发生的。几千年来，人们所做的许多反思，大多是在群体中无形地、随着时间的推移而展开的。在印刷机发明之前，大量的知识是通过口头传播的。人类历史就像一场漫长的电话游戏，每个发送者都会以不同的方式记忆和传达信息，而每个接收者也无法知道故事是如何被改变的。当一个想法传遍大地时，它可能会在无人察觉的情况下被彻底重塑。随着越来越多的信息被记录在书籍和报纸上，我们开始追踪知识和信仰演变的不同方式。如今，尽管我们可以看到维基百科的每一次修订，但做出修改的人往往会陷入编辑战，拒绝承认他人的正确或错误。将知识编纂成法或许有助于我们追踪知识，但这并不一定能让我们开阔思路。

Many great thinkers have argued that rethinking is a task for each generation, not each person—even in science. As the eminent physicist Max Planck put it, “ A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.” From this perspective, generations are replaced faster than people change their views.

许多伟大的思想家都认为，反思是每一代人的任务，而不是每个人的任务——即使在科学领域也是如此。正如著名物理学家马克斯·普朗克所说：“一个新的科学真理的胜利，并非在于它说服了反对者并让他们看到了光明，而在于它的反对者最终消亡。” 从这个角度来看，世代更替的速度比人们改变观点的速度更快。

I no longer believe that has to be the case. We all have the capacity to think again—we just don’t use it often enough, because we don’t think like scientists often enough.

我不再相信情况必须如此。我们都拥有重新思考的能力——只是我们运用得不够多，因为我们不像科学家那样思考得不够多。

The scientific method can be traced back several millennia, at least as far back as Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. I was surprised to learn, then, that the word scientist is relatively new: it wasn’t coined until 1833. For centuries, there was no general term for people whose profession was to discover knowledge through developing hypotheses, designing experiments, and collecting data. I hope we don’t wait that long to recognize that this way of thinking applies to every line of work—and any walk of life.

科学方法可以追溯到几千年前，至少可以追溯到亚里士多德和古希腊。因此，我惊讶地发现，“科学家”这个词相对较新：它直到1833年才被创造出来。几个世纪以来，并没有一个统称来指代那些通过提出假设、设计实验和收集数据来发现知识的人。我希望我们不要等太久才意识到，这种思维方式适用于各行各业——以及各行各业。

Even as this book goes to press, I’m still rethinking. In making the case for thinking like a scientist, something has been nagging at me. I wonder if I’ve devoted too little attention to the situations in which it’s productive to preach, prosecute, and politick. When it comes to rethinking our own views, the weight of the evidence favors the scientist mode as giving us the best odds. * But the ideal mode is less clear cut when it comes to opening other people’s minds. I tried to capture the nuances in the value of each approach, exploring how preaching can be effective in debates with people who are receptive to our viewpoint or aren’t invested in the issue; prosecuting can get through to audiences who aren’t determined to be in control; and simplicity can persuade our own political tribe. But even after reviewing these data points, I still wasn’t sure whether I’d done enough to qualify my argument.

即使本书即将付印，我仍在反思。在论证像科学家一样思考的过程中，有些东西一直困扰着我。我怀疑自己是否太少关注那些在哪些情况下，布道、起诉和政治活动能够产生成效。在反思自身观点时，大量证据都表明科学家模式最有胜算。*但在开阔他人视野方面，理想的模式就不那么明确了。我试图捕捉每种方法价值的细微差别，探索在与那些接受我们观点或对相关问题不感兴趣的人进行辩论时，布道如何有效；起诉如何打动那些并非一心想掌控局面的受众；而简洁明了的方式如何说服我们自己的政治立场。但即使在回顾了这些数据点之后，我仍然不确定我是否已经做了足够的论证来佐证我的论点。

Then the coronavirus pandemic happened, and I became curious about how leaders communicate during crisis. How do they give people a sense of security in the present and hope for the future? Preaching the virtues of their plans and prosecuting alternative proposals could reduce uncertainty. Making a political case might rally the base around shared goals.

后来，新冠疫情爆发，我开始好奇领导人在危机期间是如何沟通的。他们如何让人们在当下感到安全，并对未来充满希望？宣扬他们计划的优点，并推行替代方案，可以减少不确定性。提出政治主张或许能将民众团结在共同的目标上。

For me, the most instructive example came from the governor of New York. In an early speech in the spring, as his state and the nation faced an unprecedented crisis, he announced, “It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

对我来说，最有启发性的例子来自纽约州州长。今年春天，当他的州乃至整个国家面临前所未有的危机时，他在一次早期演讲中宣布：“采取一种方法并尝试一下，这是常识：如果失败了，就坦诚承认，再尝试另一种方法。但最重要的是，尝试一下。”

The New York Times quickly eviscerated the governor’s speech, noting that “ something unspecified is no better than nothing.” Whereas other leaders were “precise, concrete, positive,” the governor was “indefinite, abstract, irresolute.” It wasn’t just the media that trashed the speech—one of the governor’s own advisers apparently described it as an act of political stupidity.

《纽约时报》迅速抨击了州长的讲话，指出“不明确的事情总比没有好”。其他领导人的讲话“精准、具体、积极”，而州长的讲话却“含糊、抽象、优柔寡断”。不仅仅是媒体抨击了州长的讲话——州长自己的一位顾问显然也将其描述为政治上的愚蠢行为。

It’s easy to see the appeal of a confident leader who offers a clear vision, a strong plan, and a definitive forecast for the future. But in times of crisis as well as times of prosperity, what we need more is a leader who accepts uncertainty, acknowledges mistakes, learns from others, and rethinks plans. That’s what this particular governor was offering, and the early critics were wrong about how his proposed approach would unfold.

一位自信的领导者，能够提供清晰的愿景、强有力的计划以及对未来的明确预测，其吸引力显而易见。但无论危机还是繁荣时期，我们更需要的是一位能够接受不确定性、承认错误、向他人学习并反思计划的领导者。这位州长展现的正是这种领导力，而早期批评者对他所提出的方案将如何实施的预测是错误的。

This didn’t happen during the coronavirus pandemic, and the governor wasn’t Andrew Cuomo. It occurred the last time unemployment in America was so high: during the Great Depression. It was 1932, and the governor of New York was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He delivered his “try something” message as the country was reeling from the Great Depression, in a commencement speech at a small university in Georgia. In the most memorable line from the speech, FDR argued that “the country demands bold, persistent experimentation.” That principle became a touchstone of his leadership. Although economists are still debating which of the resulting reforms lifted the country out of a historic depression, FDR’s trial-and-error method of formulating policy was popular enough that Americans elected him president four times.

这种情况在新冠疫情期间并未发生，当时的州长也不是安德鲁·科莫。这种情况发生在美国上次失业率如此之高的时候：大萧条时期。那是1932年，时任纽约州长的是富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福。在美国正从大萧条中挣扎之际，他在佐治亚州一所小型大学的毕业典礼演讲中，传达了“尝试一下”的信息。演讲中最令人难忘的一句话是，罗斯福认为“国家需要大胆、坚持不懈的尝试”。这一原则成为他领导能力的试金石。尽管经济学家仍在争论哪些改革措施使美国摆脱了历史性的大萧条，但罗斯福制定政策的反复试验方法非常受欢迎，美国人四次选举他担任总统。

In his commencement speech, FDR wasn’t preaching, prosecuting, or appealing to politics. He spoke with the same kind of confident humility that you’d expect from a scientist. There’s a lot we don’t know about how to communicate confident humility. When people lack knowledge about a complex topic—like stopping a pandemic or reinvigorating an economy—they might be comfortable with leaders admitting what they don’t know today and doubting the statements they made yesterday. When people feel more informed and the problem is simpler, they might dismiss leaders who acknowledge uncertainty and change their minds as flip-floppers.

在罗斯福的毕业典礼演讲中，他并非在说教、控诉或诉诸政治。他讲话时带着一种科学家应有的自信谦逊。关于如何传达自信谦逊，我们还有很多不了解的地方。当人们对某个复杂话题（例如阻止疫情或重振经济）缺乏了解时，他们或许会乐于接受领导人承认他们今天不知道的事情，并质疑他们昨天的言论。当人们感觉信息更丰富，问题更简单时，他们或许会将那些承认不确定性并改变主意的领导人视为反复无常的人。

I’m still curious about when each mode is most effective for persuasion, but on balance, I’d love to see more people do their rethinking out loud, as FDR did. As valuable as rethinking is, we don’t do it enough—whether we’re grappling with the pivotal decisions of our lives or the great quandaries of our time. Complex problems like pandemics, climate change, and political polarization call on us to stay mentally flexible. In the face of any number of unknown and evolving threats, humility, doubt, and curiosity are vital to discovery. Bold, persistent experimentation might be our best tool for rethinking.

我仍然好奇每种模式何时最有效，但总的来说，我希望看到更多人像罗斯福那样，大声地反思。反思固然宝贵，但我们做的还不够——无论是在努力应对人生的关键抉择，还是在应对时代面临的重大困境。疫情、气候变化和政治两极分化等复杂问题要求我们保持思维的灵活性。面对各种未知且不断演变的威胁，谦逊、怀疑和好奇心对于探索至关重要。大胆而坚持的实验或许是我们反思的最佳工具。

We can all improve at thinking again. Whatever conclusion we reach, I think the world would be a better place if everyone put on scientist goggles a little more often. I’m curious: do you agree? If not, what evidence would change your mind?

我们都能再次提升思维能力。无论我们得出什么结论，我认为如果每个人都能更经常地戴上科学家的眼镜，世界将会变得更美好。我很好奇：你同意吗？如果不同意，有什么证据能改变你的想法？

Actions for Impact

产生影响的行动

If you’re interested in working on your rethinking skills, here are my top thirty practical takeaways.

如果您有兴趣提高您的反思能力，以下是我提出的三十条实用建议。

I. INDIVIDUAL RETHINKING

一、个人反思

A. Develop the Habit of Thinking Again

A. 养成重新思考的习惯

1. Think like a scientist. When you start forming an opinion, resist the temptation to preach, prosecute, or politick. Treat your emerging view as a hunch or a hypothesis and test it with data. Like the entrepreneurs who learned to approach their business strategies as experiments, you’ll maintain the agility to pivot.

1. 像科学家一样思考。当你开始形成一个观点时，要抵制说教、批判或政治化的诱惑。将你正在形成的观点视为一种预感或假设，并用数据进行验证。就像那些学会将商业战略视为实验的企业家一样，你也能保持敏捷的应变能力。

2. Define your identity in terms of values, not opinions. It’s easier to avoid getting stuck to your past beliefs if you don’t become attached to them as part of your present self-concept. See yourself as someone who values curiosity, learning, mental flexibility, and searching for knowledge. As you form opinions, keep a list of factors that would change your mind.

2. 用价值观而非观点来定义你的身份。如果你不将过去的信念视为你当前自我概念的一部分，就更容易避免被它们所束缚。把自己视为一个重视好奇心、学习能力、思维灵活性和探索知识的人。在你形成观点的过程中，列出一些可能改变你想法的因素。

3. Seek out information that goes against your views. You can fight confirmation bias, burst filter bubbles, and escape echo chambers by actively engaging with ideas that challenge your assumptions. An easy place to start is to follow people who make you think—even if you usually disagree with what they think.

3. 寻找与你观点相悖的信息。积极接触那些挑战你假设的观点，就能对抗确认偏差、打破过滤泡沫，并摆脱回声室效应。一个简单的起点就是关注那些能让你思考的人——即使你通常不同意他们的观点。

B. Calibrate Your Confidence

B. 调整你的信心

4. Beware of getting stranded at the summit of Mount Stupid. Don’t confuse confidence with competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a good reminder that the better you think you are, the greater the risk that you’re overestimating yourself—and the greater the odds that you’ll stop improving. To prevent overconfidence in your knowledge, reflect on how well you can explain a given subject.

4. 谨防困于愚蠢之巅。不要将自信与能力混为一谈。邓宁-克鲁格效应提醒我们，你认为自己越优秀，你高估自己的风险就越大，你停止进步的可能性也就越大。为了避免对自己的知识过度自信，不妨反思一下自己对某一主题的解释能力。

5. Harness the benefits of doubt. When you find yourself doubting your ability, reframe the situation as an opportunity for growth. You can have confidence in your capacity to learn while questioning your current solution to a problem. Knowing what you don’t know is often the first step toward developing expertise.

5. 把握怀疑的益处。当你发现自己怀疑自己的能力时，不妨将这种情况重新定义为一次成长的机会。在质疑当前解决问题的方法的同时，你也能对自己的学习能力充满信心。了解自己不知道的东西往往是迈向专业技能的第一步。

6. Embrace the joy of being wrong. When you find out you’ve made a mistake, take it as a sign that you’ve just discovered something new. Don’t be afraid to laugh at yourself. It helps you focus less on proving yourself—and more on improving yourself.

6. 拥抱犯错的乐趣。当你发现自己犯了错误时，把它看作是你发现了新事物的标志。不要害怕自嘲。这能帮助你减少对自我证明的关注，而更多地专注于提升自己。

C. Invite Others to Question Your Thinking

C. 邀请别人质疑你的想法

7. Learn something new from each person you meet. Everyone knows more than you about something. Ask people what they’ve been rethinking lately, or start a conversation about times you’ve changed your mind in the past year.

7. 从你遇到的每个人身上学习新的东西。每个人都比你更了解某些事情。问问别人最近在重新思考什么，或者聊聊你在过去一年里改变主意的经历。

8. Build a challenge network, not just a support network. It’s helpful to have cheerleaders encouraging you, but you also need critics to challenge you. Who are your most thoughtful critics? Once you’ve identified them, invite them to question your thinking. To make sure they know you’re open to dissenting views, tell them why you respect their pushback—and where they usually add the most value.

8. 建立一个挑战网络，而不仅仅是一个支持网络。有啦啦队员的鼓励固然有益，但你也需要批评者来挑战你。谁是你最有思想的批评者？一旦你确定了他们，就邀请他们质疑你的想法。为了确保他们知道你愿意接受不同意见，告诉他们你为什么尊重他们的反驳——以及他们通常在哪些方面最有价值。

9. Don’t shy away from constructive conflict. Disagreements don’t have to be disagreeable. Although relationship conflict is usually counterproductive, task conflict can help you think again. Try framing disagreement as a debate: people are more likely to approach it intellectually and less likely to take it personally.

9. 不要回避建设性的冲突。分歧不一定非得令人不快。虽然人际关系冲突通常会适得其反，但任务冲突可以帮助你重新思考。试着把分歧当成一场辩论：人们更有可能理性地处理它，而不太可能把它当成针对个人的。

II. INTERPERSONAL RETHINKING

二、人际反思

A. Ask Better Questions

A. 提出更好的问题

10. Practice the art of persuasive listening. When we’re trying to open other people’s minds, we can frequently accomplish more by listening than by talking. How can you show an interest in helping people crystallize their own views and uncover their own reasons for change? A good way to start is to increase your question-to-statement ratio.

10. 练习说服性倾听的艺术。当我们试图打开别人的思路时，倾听往往比说话更有效。你如何展现出对帮助人们理清自身观点、发现他们改变的理由的兴趣呢？一个好的开始是提高你的问题与陈述的比例。

11. Question how rather than why. When people describe why they hold extreme views, they often intensify their commitment and double down. When they try to explain how they would make their views a reality, they often realize the limits of their understanding and start to temper some of their opinions.

11. 质疑“如何”而非“为什么”。当人们解释自己持有极端观点的原因时，他们往往会更加坚定自己的立场，甚至加倍努力。而当他们试图解释如何将自己的观点付诸实践时，他们往往会意识到自己理解的局限性，并开始调整一些观点。

12. Ask “What evidence would change your mind?” You can’t bully someone into agreeing with you. It’s often more effective to inquire about what would open their minds, and then see if you can convince them on their own terms.

12. 问问“什么证据能改变你的想法？”你无法强迫别人同意你的观点。更有效的做法通常是先问问他们什么能让他们改变想法，然后看看你是否能用他们自己的方式说服他们。

13. Ask how people originally formed an opinion. Many of our opinions, like our stereotypes, are arbitrary; we’ve developed them without rigorous data or deep reflection. To help people reevaluate, prompt them to consider how they’d believe different things if they’d been born at a different time or in a different place.

13. 问问人们最初是如何形成观点的。我们的许多观点，就像我们的刻板印象一样，都是武断的；我们在没有严谨的数据或深刻的思考的情况下就形成了它们。为了帮助人们重新评估，可以鼓励他们思考，如果他们出生在不同的时代或地点，他们会有怎样的不同看法。

B. Approach Disagreements as Dances, Not Battles

B. 把分歧当成舞蹈，而不是战争

14. Acknowledge common ground. A debate is like a dance, not a war. Admitting points of convergence doesn’t make you weaker—it shows that you’re willing to negotiate about what’s true, and it motivates the other side to consider your point of view.

14. 承认共同点。辩论就像舞蹈，而不是战争。承认共同点并不会让你变弱——它表明你愿意就真相进行谈判，并激励对方考虑你的观点。

15. Remember that less is often more. If you pile on too many different reasons to support your case, it can make your audiences defensive—and cause them to reject your entire argument based on its least compelling points. Instead of diluting your argument, lead with a few of your strongest points.

15. 记住，少即是多。如果你堆砌太多理由来支持你的论点，可能会激起听众的防御心理，导致他们基于最不具说服力的论点而驳斥你的整个论点。与其淡化你的论点，不如用几个最有力的论点来引导。

16. Reinforce freedom of choice. Sometimes people resist not because they’re dismissing the argument but because they’re rejecting the feeling of their behavior being controlled. It helps to respect their autonomy by reminding them that it’s up to them to choose what they believe.

16. 强调选择的自由。有时人们的反抗并非因为他们不认同某个论点，而是因为他们拒绝接受自己行为被控制的感觉。提醒他们选择什么信仰取决于他们自己，有助于尊重他们的自主权。

17. Have a conversation about the conversation. If emotions are running hot, try redirecting the discussion to the process. Like the expert negotiators who comment on their feelings and test their understanding of the other side’s feelings, you can sometimes make progress by expressing your disappointment or frustration and asking people if they share it.

17. 就对话进行讨论。如果情绪激动，试着将话题引向过程。就像那些谈判高手会表达自己的感受，并测试他们对对方感受的理解一样，你有时可以通过表达自己的失望或沮丧，并询问对方是否有同样的感受来取得进展。

III. COLLECTIVE RETHINKING

三、集体反思

A. Have More Nuanced Conversations

A. 进行更细致的对话

18. Complexify contentious topics. There are more than two sides to every story. Instead of treating polarizing issues like two sides of a coin, look at them through the many lenses of a prism. Seeing the shades of gray can make us more open.

18. 将有争议的话题复杂化。每个故事都有不止两面。与其把两极分化的问题当成硬币的两面来看待，不如透过棱镜的多个角度来看待它们。看到灰色地带可以让我们更加开放。

19. Don’t shy away from caveats and contingencies. Acknowledging competing claims and conflicting results doesn’t sacrifice interest or credibility. It’s an effective way to engage audiences while encouraging them to stay curious.

19. 不要回避警告和意外情况。承认相互矛盾的观点和结果并不会损害研究的趣味性和可信度。这是一种有效吸引读者并鼓励他们保持好奇心的方法。

20. Expand your emotional range. You don’t have to eliminate frustration or even indignation to have a productive conversation. You just need to mix in a broader set of emotions along with them—you might try showing some curiosity or even admitting confusion or ambivalence.

20. 拓展你的情感范围。你不必为了进行富有成效的对话而消除沮丧甚至愤慨。你只需要融入更广泛的情绪——你可以尝试表现出一些好奇，甚至承认困惑或矛盾。

B. Teach Kids to Think Again

B. 教孩子重新思考

21. Have a weekly myth-busting discussion at dinner. It’s easier to debunk false beliefs at an early age, and it’s a great way to teach kids to become comfortable with rethinking. Pick a different topic each week—one day it might be dinosaurs, the next it could be outer space—and rotate responsibility around the family for bringing a myth for discussion.

21. 每周晚餐时进行一次揭穿迷思的讨论。在孩子小的时候更容易揭穿错误的观念，这也是教他们适应反思的好方法。每周选择一个不同的话题——今天可能是恐龙，明天可能是外太空——并轮流在家人之间讨论迷思。

22. Invite kids to do multiple drafts and seek feedback from others. Creating different versions of a drawing or a story can encourage kids to learn the value of revising their ideas. Getting input from others can also help them to continue evolving their standards. They might learn to embrace confusion—and to stop expecting perfection on the first try.

22. 鼓励孩子们多画几稿，并征求他人的反馈。创作不同版本的绘画或故事，可以鼓励孩子们学习修改想法的价值。征求他人的意见也能帮助他们不断提升创作水平。他们或许能学会接受困惑，不再期望第一次尝试就完美。

23. Stop asking kids what they want to be when they grow up. They don’t have to define themselves in terms of a career. A single identity can close the door to alternatives. Instead of trying to narrow their options, help them broaden their possibilities. They don’t have to be one thing—they can do many things.

23. 不要再问孩子长大后想做什么。他们不必用职业来定义自己。单一的身份会切断他们其他选择的大门。与其试图缩小他们的选择范围，不如帮助他们拓宽可能性。他们不必只做一件事——他们可以做很多事情。

C. Create Learning Organizations

C.创建学习型组织

24. Abandon best practices. Best practices suggest that the ideal routines are already in place. If we want people to keep rethinking the way they work, we might be better off adopting process accountability and continually striving for better practices.

24. 放弃最佳实践。最佳实践表明，理想的惯例早已存在。如果我们希望人们不断反思自己的工作方式，我们或许最好采用流程问责制，并不断追求更好的实践。

25. Establish psychological safety. In learning cultures, people feel confident that they can question and challenge the status quo without being punished. Psychological safety often starts with leaders role-modeling humility.

25. 建立心理安全感。在学习型文化中，人们充满信心，相信自己能够质疑和挑战现状，而不会受到惩罚。心理安全感通常始于领导者以身作则，展现谦逊的品格。

26. Keep a rethinking scorecard. Don’t evaluate decisions based only on the results; track how thoroughly different options are considered in the process. A bad process with a good outcome is luck. A good process with a bad outcome might be a smart experiment.

26. 保留反思记分卡。不要只根据结果来评估决策；要追踪过程中对不同方案的考量程度。一个糟糕的过程如果结果好，那只能说是运气好。一个好的过程如果结果不好，或许是一个明智的尝试。

D. Stay Open to Rethinking Your Future

D. 保持开放心态，重新思考你的未来

27. Throw out the ten-year plan. What interested you last year might bore you this year—and what confused you yesterday might become exciting tomorrow. Passions are developed, not just discovered. Planning just one step ahead can keep you open to rethinking.

27. 抛开十年计划。去年让你感兴趣的事情，今年可能就让你感到厌倦了；昨天让你困惑的事情，明天可能就变得激动人心。激情是培养出来的，而不是偶然发现的。提前一步规划，就能让你保持重新思考的开放心态。

28. Rethink your actions, not just your surroundings. Chasing happiness can chase it away. Trading one set of circumstances for another isn’t always enough. Joy can wax and wane, but meaning is more likely to last. Building a sense of purpose often starts with taking actions to enhance your learning or your contribution to others.

28. 反思你的行为，而不仅仅是你的周围环境。追逐幸福可能会把它赶走。用一种境遇换取另一种境遇并不总是足够的。快乐会时好时坏，但意义更有可能持久。建立目标感通常始于采取行动来提升你的学习能力或为他人做出贡献。

29. Schedule a life checkup. It’s easy to get caught in escalation of commitment to an unfulfilling path. Just as you schedule health checkups with your doctor, it’s worth having a life checkup on your calendar once or twice a year. It’s a way to assess how much you’re learning, how your beliefs and goals are evolving, and whether your next steps warrant some rethinking.

29. 安排一次人生体检。人们很容易陷入不断升级的承诺，最终却发现自己无法达成目标。就像你安排医生进行健康检查一样，每年在日历上安排一两次人生体检也是值得的。这可以评估你学习了多少，你的信念和目标如何演变，以及你的下一步是否需要重新思考。

30. Make time to think again. When I looked at my calendar, I noticed that it was mostly full of doing. I set a goal of spending an hour a day thinking and learning. Now I’ve decided to go further: I’m scheduling a weekly time for rethinking and unlearning. I reach out to my challenge network and ask what ideas and opinions they think I should be reconsidering. Recently, my wife, Allison, told me that I need to rethink the way I pronounce the word mayonnaise .

30. 留出时间重新思考。我看了看日历，发现上面大部分时间都安排了“行动”。我设定了一个目标，每天花一个小时思考和学习。现在我决定更进一步：我每周安排一段时间来重新思考和忘却过去。我会联系我的挑战网络，询问他们认为我应该重新考虑哪些想法和意见。最近，我的妻子艾莉森告诉我，我需要重新思考一下“蛋黄酱”这个词的发音。

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

致谢

The expression of gratitude is something that probably needs less rethinking and more doing. I want to start by commending literary agent extraordinaire Richard Pine for inspiring me to rethink my audience and continue broadening my lens beyond work, and editor par excellence Rick Kot for believing in and developing the potential of these ideas. As always, it was a dream to work with the two of them, and they offered the ideal blend of challenge and support.

表达感激之情或许需要的不是反复思考，而是付诸行动。首先，我要赞扬杰出的文学经纪人理查德·派恩，他激励我重新思考我的读者，并不断拓宽工作之外的视野；还要赞扬杰出的编辑里克·科特，他相信并发掘了这些想法的潜力。一如既往，与他们两位合作是我的梦想，他们提供了挑战与支持的完美结合。

The accuracy of this book was enhanced by the meticulous work of two professional fact-checkers. Paul Durbin applied his eagle eye to every sentence, working with remarkable thoroughness and alacrity. Andy Young carefully reviewed every page and followed up with a number of key sources.

两位专业事实核查员的细致工作，提升了本书的准确性。保罗·德宾以敏锐的眼光审视每一句话，工作细致周到，效率惊人。安迪·杨仔细审阅了每一页，并参考了一些关键资料来源。

The content and tone of the book benefited immeasurably from the early readers in my challenge network. Marissa Shandell and Karren Knowlton were exceedingly generous in reading more chapter drafts than any human should endure and unfailingly brilliant in improving them. I cannot thank them enough for enriching every section of the book with leads on characters, suggestions on flow, and refinements on language. Marissa went the extra mile to enliven concepts and synthesize practical takeaways. Karren went above and beyond to amplify complexity and diversify thought.

本书的内容和基调得益于我挑战网络中的早期读者。Marissa Shandell 和 Karren Knowlton 非常慷慨，他们阅读了比任何人都能承受的更多的章节草稿，并且始终如一地在修改这些草稿方面才华横溢。我非常感谢他们，他们通过人物线索、流程建议和语言改进，丰富了本书的每个部分。Marissa 不遗余力地使概念生动活泼，并总结了实用的要点。Karren 则竭尽全力，扩展了复杂性，丰富了思路。

Reb Rebele, whose taste in ideas and prose is second to none, dished out the tough love that the early chapters needed and brought the seasoning that was missing from the denouements. Queen of signposting Grace Rubenstein offered sage guidance for helping readers see the forest in the trees and recognize thinking again as a habit that’s both timely and timeless. Dan O’Donnell helped me de-escalate my commitment to a series of dead ends and composed the written version of jaunty music to animate several key studies and stories.

雷布·雷贝勒（Reb Rebele）在思想和文笔方面的品味无与伦比，他给予了前几章所需的严厉关爱，并补充了结局所缺失的调味料。“路标女王”格蕾丝·鲁宾斯坦（Grace Rubenstein）提供了睿智的指导，帮助读者透过树木看到森林，并重新认识到思考是一种既合时又永恒的习惯。丹·奥唐纳（Dan O’Donnell）帮助我减少了对一系列死胡同的执着，并为几个重要的研究和故事创作了轻快的音乐。

Lindsay Miller—the human equivalent of the corpus callosum—led the cheer for more conversational snippets and richer illustrations of how the preacher, prosecutor, politician, and scientist waltz into our psyches. Nicole Granet expanded my thinking around how rethinking is relevant to every domain of life. Sheryl Sandberg sharpened the structure by convincing me to introduce the core idea before the organizing framework, and underscoring the value of well-placed bookends. Constantinos Coutifaris made the vital point that I needed to explore when it’s persuasive to preach, prosecute, and politick. Natalia Villarman, Neal Stewart, and Will Fields shared their expertise on antiracism. Michael Choo motivated me to go back to the drawing board on a chapter that wasn’t working. Justin Berg lent his creative forecasting skills to select and develop my most novel and useful insights, and also introduced me to the satisfaction of reverse alliteration (where sequential words share a last letter or syllable). Susan Grant, ever the English teacher, corrected grammar, caught typos, and fought with me about the Oxford comma. Sorry, Mom, that’s one thing I don’t plan to rethink.

林赛·米勒——人类的胼胝体——引领大家欢呼，呼吁更多对话片段和更丰富的例证，展现传教士、检察官、政客和科学家如何融入我们的心灵。妮可·格拉内特拓展了我的思维，让我思考反思如何与生活的各个领域息息相关。谢丽尔·桑德伯格说服我将核心思想置于组织框架之前，并强调了恰当的“书挡”的价值，从而完善了结构。康斯坦丁诺斯·库蒂法里斯提出了一个至关重要的观点，我需要探索何时进行传教、起诉和政治活动才具有说服力。娜塔莉亚·维拉曼、尼尔·斯图尔特和威尔·菲尔兹分享了他们在反种族主义方面的专业知识。迈克尔·朱鼓励我重新构思一个行不通的章节。贾斯汀·伯格凭借他富有创意的预测能力，帮我筛选并发展了最新颖、最实用的见解，还让我体验到了反头韵（连续的单词共用一个最后一个字母或音节）的乐趣。苏珊·格兰特，这位永远的英语老师，帮我纠正语法、找出拼写错误，还跟我争论牛津逗号的问题。对不起，妈妈，这件事我以后再也不打算改了。

Impact Lab reminded me once again how much teachers can learn from students. Vanessa Wanyandeh challenged me to consider how power imbalances affect which groups should be doing the majority of the rethinking and highlight whose responsibility it is to fight prejudice. Akash Pulluru fearlessly obliterated weak arguments and debated the principles of good debate. Graelin Mandel called for more information about when and why task conflict causes relationship conflict, and Zach Sweeney made a passionate case for expanding the role of the rethinking cycle. Jordan Lei pushed me to delve more deeply into the first-instinct fallacy, and Shane Goldstein took the lead in talking me out of the blank-page epilogue and into showing some edits and margin notes. Nicholas Strauch requested more context on how to ask good questions and defended the frog, and Madeline Fagen suggested more clarity on the distinction between beliefs and values. Wendy Lee advised me to go into more detail on expressing confident humility, Kenny Hoang suggested I demonstrate some of the interpersonal rethinking principles in my writing, and Lizzie Youshaei called for more analysis of when and why people are open to being wrong. Meg Sreenivas pointed out extraneous details, Aaron Kahane clarified confusing arguments, and Shaheel Mitra suggested the Edgar Mitchell quote.

影响实验室再次提醒我，教师可以从学生身上学到很多东西。Vanessa Wanyandeh 挑战我思考权力不平衡如何影响哪些群体应该承担大部分反思工作，并强调谁有责任消除偏见。Akash Pulluru 无畏地驳斥了薄弱的论点，并探讨了良好辩论的原则。Graelin Mandel 呼吁提供更多关于任务冲突何时以及为何导致关系冲突的信息，Zach Sweeney 则热情洋溢地主张扩大反思循环的作用。Jordan Lei 鼓励我更深入地探究“第一本能谬误”，Shane Goldstein 则带头劝我放弃空白页的结语，并展示一些编辑内容和边注。Nicholas Strauch 要求提供更多关于如何提出好问题的背景信息，并为青蛙一题辩护，Madeline Fagen 则建议更清楚地区分信仰和价值观。 Wendy Lee 建议我更详细地阐述如何表达自信的谦逊；Kenny Hoang 建议我在写作中展现一些人际反思原则；Lizzie Youshaei 则呼吁我更多地分析人们何时以及为何容易犯错。Meg Sreenivas 指出了一些无关紧要的细节；Aaron Kahane 澄清了令人困惑的论点；Shaheel Mitra 则建议引用 Edgar Mitchell 的话。

I was lucky to have the support of top-notch teams at InkWell (shout-out to Alexis Hurley, Nathaniel Jacks, and Eliza Rothstein) and Viking (a group of people whose curiosity I miss every week I’m not writing or launching a book). Special thanks to Carolyn Coleburn, Whitney Peeling, Lindsay Prevette, and Bel Banta for their publicity prowess; Kate Stark, Lydia Hirt, and Mary Stone for their creative marketing; Tricia Conley, Tess Espinoza, Bruce Giffords, and Fabiana Van Arsdell for their editorial and production expertise; Jason Ramirez for art direction; Camille LeBlanc for wrangling; and Brian Tart, Andrea Schulz, Madeline McIntosh, Allison Dobson, and speed demon Markus Dohle for their ongoing support. Also, it was a delight to collaborate with Matt Shirley on the charts. Along with lending his characteristic cleverness and humor, he showed impressive patience in working to make sure they fit the content and tone of the book.

我非常荣幸能得到 InkWell（特别感谢 Alexis Hurley、Nathaniel Jacks 和 Eliza Rothstein）和 Viking（这群好奇心爆棚的人，每周只要我不写书或出书，我就会想念他们）的顶尖团队的支持。特别感谢 Carolyn Coleburn、Whitney Peeling、Lindsay Prevette 和 Bel Banta 的出色宣传；Kate Stark、Lydia Hirt 和 Mary Stone 的创意营销；Tricia Conley、Tess Espinoza、Bruce Giffords 和 Fabiana Van Arsdell 的编辑和制作；Jason Ramirez 的艺术指导；Camille LeBlanc 的文字编辑；以及 Brian Tart、Andrea Schulz、Madeline McIntosh、Allison Dobson 和速度狂人 Markus Dohle 的持续支持。此外，与 Matt Shirley 合作制作排行榜也同样令人欣喜。除了发挥他特有的聪明才智和幽默感之外，他还表现出令人印象深刻的耐心，以确保它们符合书的内容和基调。

A number of colleagues contributed to this book through conversations. As always, Dan Pink gave excellent input on framing the idea and tips on relevant research. My colleagues at Wharton—especially Rachel Arnett, Sigal Barsade, Drew Carton, Stephanie Creary, Angela Duckworth, Cade Massey, Samir Nurmohamed, and Nancy Rothbard—modeled many of the principles in the book and led me to think again about many of the points I was making. I am also grateful to Phil Tetlock for the preacher-prosecutor-politician framework and referrals to Kjirste Morrell and Jean-Pierre Beugoms; Eva Chen, Terry Murray, and Phil Rescober for the analysis of Jean-Pierre’s forecasts; Bob Sutton for putting Brad Bird on my radar and analyzing his Incredibles leadership so perceptively, as well as Jamie Woolf and Chris Wiggum for opening the Pixar door; Karl Weick for introducing me to Mann Gulch; Shannon Sedgwick Davis and Laren Poole for putting me in touch with Betty Bigombe and sharing background on her story; Jeff Ashby and Mike Bloomfield for the referrals to Chris Hansen and Ellen Ochoa; Eoghan Sheehy for the connection to Harish Natarajan; and Douglas Archibald for recommending Ron Berger (props to Noah Devereaux and the Strive Challenge for that serendipitous conversation). Early on, Eric Best showed me how rethinking could help people raise the bar, and Brian Little, Jane Dutton, Richard Hackman, and Sue Ashford taught me to see rethinking as one of the great joys of being an organizational psychologist.

许多同事通过交流为本书做出了贡献。与往常一样，丹·平克在构思构思和相关研究方面给出了出色的意见。我在沃顿商学院的同事——特别是雷切尔·阿内特、西格尔·巴萨德、德鲁·卡顿、斯蒂芬妮·克里里、安吉拉·达克沃思、凯德·马西、萨米尔·纳莫哈默德和南希·罗斯巴德——为本书的许多原则树立了榜样，让我重新思考我所提出的许多观点。我还要感谢菲尔·泰特洛克提出的“传教士-检察官-政客”框架，并向基尔斯特·莫雷尔和让-皮埃尔·贝戈姆斯推荐了他们；感谢伊娃·陈、特里·默里和菲尔·雷斯科伯对让-皮埃尔的预测进行了分析；感谢鲍勃·萨顿让我关注布拉德·伯德，并如此敏锐地分析了他在《超人总动员》中的领导能力，还要感谢杰米·伍尔夫和克里斯·维古姆打开了皮克斯的大门；感谢卡尔·维克把我介绍给曼恩·古尔奇； Shannon Sedgwick Davis 和 Laren Poole 让我联系上了 Betty Bigombe 并分享了她的故事背景；Jeff Ashby 和 Mike Bloomfield 推荐了我认识 Chris Hansen 和 Ellen Ochoa；Eoghan Sheehy 帮我联系上了 Harish Natarajan；Douglas Archibald 推荐了 Ron Berger（感谢 Noah Devereaux 和 Strive Challenge 带来的那次偶然的对话）。早期，Eric Best 向我展示了反思如何帮助人们提升自我，而 Brian Little、Jane Dutton、Richard Hackman 和 Sue Ashford 则教会我将反思视为组织心理学家的一大乐趣。

Every day, being a parent shows me that we all have the innate capacity to change our minds. As I finished writing this book during the pandemic, Henry wondered if the water supply might be affected and was eager to rethink where we get running water ( Is there a tube that connects the ocean to our house? We might get an octopus! ). When I asked how she convinces me to rethink things, Elena opened my eyes to a persuasion technique I had completely overlooked ( Puppy dog eyes! Works every time! ). When we were considering various optical illusions for the jacket of this book, Joanna came up with a better idea ( What about a candle with a flame that’s water instead of fire? ). I came away rethinking where creative ideas come from: if our twelve-year-old can come up with the perfect image for my book jacket, what else can kids do? I love how happily and effortlessly our children think again—and how they coax me to do it more often, too.

为人父母，每天都让我明白，我们每个人都拥有与生俱来的改变想法的能力。疫情期间，我完成了这本书的写作。亨利担心供水会不会受到影响，并急于重新思考我们家的自来水供应（有没有一条管子把大海和我们家连接起来？我们可能会养一只章鱼！）。当我问她是如何说服我重新思考的，埃琳娜让我明白了一种我完全忽略的说服技巧（小狗的眼神！每次都管用！）。当我们为这本书的封面构思各种视觉错觉时，乔安娜想出了一个更好的主意（用一根蜡烛，火焰不是火，而是水，怎么样？）。我重新思考了创意的来源：如果我们十二岁的孩子都能为我的书封设计出完美的形象，那么孩子们还能做什么？我喜欢孩子们快乐而轻松地重新思考——以及他们如何哄我更频繁地重新思考。

My deep gratitude goes to Allison Sweet Grant for her love, advice, and humor every step of the way. As always, she helped me rethink many of my assumptions and put up with countless trivial questions, random requests, and unnecessary debates. I still pronounce it man-aze, not may-o-naze , but she makes a compelling point that no one says “Please pass the man”; it’s “Please pass the mayo.” For the record, I don’t even like mayonnaise.

我深深感谢艾莉森·斯威特·格兰特，感谢她一路走来的爱、建议和幽默。一如既往，她帮助我反思了许多假设，并忍受了无数琐碎的问题、随机的要求和不必要的争论。我仍然把“蛋黄酱”读作“man-aze”，而不是“may-o-naze”，但她强调了一点，那就是没有人会说“请把男人递过来”，而是“请把蛋黄酱递过来”。顺便说一句，我甚至不喜欢蛋黄酱。

NOTES

笔记

Prologue

序幕

The smarter you are : Frank L. Schmidt and John Hunter, “General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (2004): 162–73.

你越聪明：弗兰克·L·施密特和约翰·亨特，“工作世界中的一般心理能力：职业成就和工作表现”，人格与社会心理学杂志86（2004）：162-73。

the faster you can solve them : David C. Geary, “Efficiency of Mitochondrial Functioning as the Fundamental Biological Mechanism of General Intelligence (G),” Psychological Review 15 (2018): 1028–50.

你解决它们的速度就越快：David C. Geary，“线粒体功能的效率作为一般智力（G）的基本生物机制”，《心理学评论》15（2018）：1028-50。

the ability to think and learn : Neel Burton, “What Is Intelligence?,” Psychology Today , November 28, 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201811/what-is-intelligence ; Charles Stangor and Jennifer Walinga, Introduction to Psychology (Victoria, BC: BCcampus, 2014); Frank L. Schmidt, “The Role of Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Why There Cannot Be a Debate,” Human Performance 15 (2002): 187–210.

思考和学习的能力：尼尔·伯顿，“什么是智力？”，《今日心理学》，2018 年 11 月 28 日，www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201811/what-is-intelligence；查尔斯·斯坦格和詹妮弗·瓦林加，《心理学导论》（不列颠哥伦比亚省维多利亚：BCcampus，2014 年）；弗兰克·L·施密特，“认知能力和工作绩效的作用：为什么不能争论”，《人类绩效》15（2002 年）：187-210。

“exercise great caution if you decide to change” : A Systematic Approach to the GRE (New York: Kaplan, 1999).

“如果你决定改变，一定要非常小心”：GRE 的系统方法（纽约：卡普兰，1999 年）。

the majority of answer revisions : Ludy T. Benjamin Jr., Timothy A. Cavell, and William R. Shallenberger III, “Staying with Initial Answers on Objective Tests: Is It a Myth?,” Teaching of Psychology 11 (1984): 133–41.

大多数答案修改：Ludy T. Benjamin Jr.、Timothy A. Cavell 和 William R. Shallenberger III，“在客观测试中坚持初始答案：这是一个神话吗？”，心理学教学 11（1984）：133-41。

counted eraser marks : Justin Kruger, Derrick Wirtz, and Dale T. Miller, “Counterfactual Thinking and the First Instinct Fallacy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (2005): 725–35.

数橡皮擦痕迹：Justin Kruger、Derrick Wirtz 和 Dale T. Miller，“反事实思维和第一本能谬误”，人格与社会心理学杂志 88（2005）：725-35。

those who do rethink their first answers : Yongnam Kim, “Apples to Oranges: Causal Effects of Answer Changing in Multiple-Choice Exams,” arXiv:1808.10577v4, last revised October 14, 2019, arxiv.org/abs/1808.10577 .

那些重新思考自己第一个答案的人：Yongnam Kim，“从苹果到橘子：多项选择题考试中答案变化的因果影响”，arXiv:1808.10577v4，最后修订于 2019 年 10 月 14 日，arxiv.org/abs/1808.10577。

considering whether you should change it : Justin J. Couchman et al., “The Instinct Fallacy: The Metacognition of Answering and Revising during College Exams,” Metacognition and Learning 11 (2016): 171–85.

考虑是否应该改变它：Justin J. Couchman 等人，“本能谬误：大学考试期间回答和复习的元认知”，元认知与学习 11（2016）：171-85。

The speaker taught them : Charles M. Slem, “The Effects of an Educational Intervention on Answer Changing Behavior,” Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association , August 1985, eric.ed.gov/?id=ED266395 .

演讲者教他们：Charles M. Slem，“教育干预对答案改变行为的影响”，美国心理学会年会，1985 年 8 月，eric.ed.gov/?id=ED266395。

we’re mental misers : Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture , 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2013).

我们是精神吝啬鬼：Susan T. Fiske 和 Shelley E. Taylor，《社会认知：从大脑到文化》，第二版（洛杉矶：Sage，2013 年）。

seizing and freezing : Arie W. Kruglanski and Donna M. Webster, “Motivated Closing of the Mind: ‘Seizing’ and ‘Freezing,’” Psychological Review 103 (1996): 263–83.

抓住和冻结：Arie W. Kruglanski 和 Donna M. Webster，“有动机的封闭思维：‘抓住’和‘冻结’”，《心理学评论》103（1996）：263-83。

better off in the slow-boiling pot : James Fallows, “The Boiled-Frog Myth: Stop the Lying Now!,” The Atlantic, September 16, 2006, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-boiled-frog-myth-stop-the-lying-now/7446/ .

放在慢煮锅里会更好：詹姆斯·法洛斯，《煮青蛙的神话：现在就停止谎言！》，《大西洋月刊》，2006 年 9 月 16 日，www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/the-boiled-frog-myth-stop-the-lying-now/7446/。

“On a big fire” : Norman Maclean, Young Men and Fire, 25th anniversary ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017); see also www.nifc.gov/safety/mann_gulch/event_timeline/event6.htm .

“论大火”：诺曼·麦克林，《年轻人与火》，25周年纪念版。（芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，2017年）；另请参阅www.nifc.gov/safety/mann_gulch/event_timeline/event6.htm。

Under acute stress, people typically revert : Barry M. Staw, Lance E. Sandelands, and Jane E. Dutton, “Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (1981): 501–24; Karl E. Weick, “The Collapse of SenseMaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster,” Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (1993): 628–52.

在急性压力下，人们通常会恢复原状：Barry M. Staw、Lance E. Sandelands 和 Jane E. Dutton，“威胁僵化对组织行为的影响：多层次分析”，《行政科学季刊》26（1981）：501-24；Karl E. Weick，“组织意义建构的崩溃：曼恩峡谷灾难”，《行政科学季刊》38（1993）：628-52。

twenty-three wildland firefighters perished : Ted Putnam, “Findings from the Wildland Firefighters Human Factors Workshop,” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology & Development Program, November 1995.

23 名野外消防员牺牲：泰德·普特南，《野外消防员人为因素研讨会的调查结果》，美国农业部、林业服务部、技术与发展计划，1995 年 11 月。

Storm King Mountain : John N. Maclean, Fire on the Mountain: The True Story of the South Canyon Fire (New York: HarperPerennial, 2009).

风暴王山：约翰·N·麦克莱恩，《山上之火：南峡谷大火的真实故事》（纽约：HarperPerennial，2009 年）。

could have moved 15 to 20 percent faster : Ted Putnam, “Analysis of Escape Efforts and Personal Protective Equipment on the South Canyon Fire,” Wildfire 4 (1995): 34–39.

速度可以提高 15% 到 20%：Ted Putnam，《南峡谷火灾逃生措施和个人防护装备分析》，《野火》4（1995 年）：34-39。

“Most would have lived” : Ted Putnam, “The Collapse of Decision Making and Organizational Structure on Storm King Mountain,” Wildfire 4 (1995): 40–45.

“大多数人都会活下来”：泰德·普特南，《风暴王山的决策和组织结构的崩溃》，《野火》4（1995）：40-45。

“dropped their packs” : Report of the South Canyon Fire Accident Investigation Team, August 17, 1994.

“丢下背包”：南峡谷火灾事故调查组的报告，1994 年 8 月 17 日。

“Without my tools, who am I?” : Karl E. Weick, “Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies,” Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1996): 301–13.

“没有工具，我是谁？”：Karl E. Weick，《放下你的工具：组织研究的寓言》，《行政科学季刊》41（1996）：301-13。

in an “e-group” : Elizabeth Widdicombe, “Prefrosh E-group Connected Class of ’03,” Harvard Crimson, June 5, 2003, www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/5/prefrosh-e-group-connected-class-of-03 ; Scott A. Golder, “Re: ‘Alone in Annenberg? First-Years Take Heart,’” Harvard Crimson , September 17, 1999, www.thecrimson.com/article/1999/9/17/letters-begroup-an-important-link-connecting .

在“电子小组”中：Elizabeth Widdicombe，《Prefrosh 电子小组连接 03 届学生》，《哈佛深红报》，2003 年 6 月 5 日，www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/5/prefrosh-e-group-connected-class-of-03；Scott A. Golder，《回复：‘独自一人在安纳伯格？一年级新生振作起来’》，《哈佛深红报》，1999 年 9 月 17 日，www.thecrimson.com/article/1999/9/17/letters-begroup-an-important-link-connecting。

support for the Black Lives Matter movement : Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy, “How Public Opinion Has Moved on Black Lives Matter,” New York Times , June 10, 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html .

支持“黑人的命也是命”运动：Nate Cohn 和 Kevin Quealy，《公众舆论对“黑人的命也是命”运动的看法如何变化》，《纽约时报》，2020 年 6 月 10 日，www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html。

role that wildfires play in the life cycles of forests : Kathryn Schulz, “The Story That Tore Through the Trees,” New York Magazine, September 9, 2014, nymag.com/arts/books/features/mann-gulch-norman-maclean-2014-9/index.html .

野火在森林生命周期中的作用：凯瑟琳·舒尔茨，《撕裂树木的故事》，《纽约杂志》，2014 年 9 月 9 日，nymag.com/arts/books/features/mann-gulch-norman-maclean-2014-9/index.html。

Chapter 1. A Preacher, a Prosecutor, a Politician, and a Scientist Walk into Your Mind

第一章一位传教士、一位检察官、一位政客和一位科学家走进你的大脑

“Progress is impossible without change” : George Bernard Shaw, Everybody’s Political What’s What? (London: Constable, 1944).

“没有变革就没有进步”：萧伯纳，《每个人的政治是什么？》（伦敦：康斯特布尔，1944 年）。

Mike Lazaridis has had a defining : Jacquie McNish and Sean Silcoff, Losing the Signal: The Untold Story behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry (New York: Flatiron Books, 2015).

迈克·拉扎里迪斯 (Mike Lazaridis) 有一部定义性的著作：杰奎·麦克尼什 (Jacquie McNish) 和肖恩·西尔科夫 (Sean Silcoff) 著，《失去信号：黑莓非凡崛起和惊人衰落背后不为人知的故事》(纽约：Flatiron Books，2015 年)。

the fastest-growing company : “100 Fastest-Growing Companies,” CNN Money, August 31, 2009, money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortunefastestgrowing/2009/full_list/ .

增长最快的公司：“100 家增长最快的公司”，CNN Money，2009 年 8 月 31 日，money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortunefastestgrowing/2009/full_list/。

five times as much information : Richard Alleyne, “Welcome to the Information Age—174 Newspapers a Day,” Daily Telegraph , February 11, 2011, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8316534/Welcome-to-the-information-age-174-newspapers-a-day.html .

信息量增加五倍：理查德·阿莱恩，《欢迎来到信息时代——每天 174 份报纸》，《每日电讯报》，2011 年 2 月 11 日，www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8316534/Welcome-to-the-information-age-174-newspapers-a-day.html。

medical knowledge was doubling : Peter Densen, “Challenges and Opportunities Facing Medical Education,” Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 122 (2011): 48–58.

医学知识翻倍：Peter Densen，“医学教育面临的挑战和机遇”，美国临床和气候学协会汇刊 122（2011）：48-58。

become more extreme : Joshua J. Clarkson, Zakary L. Tormala, and Christopher Leone, “A Self-Validation Perspective on the Mere Thought Effect,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2011): 449–54.

变得更加极端：Joshua J. Clarkson、Zakary L. Tormala 和 Christopher Leone，“从自我验证的角度看单纯思想效应”，《实验社会心理学杂志》47（2011）：449–54。

and more entrenched : Jamie Barden and Richard E. Petty, “The Mere Perception of Elaboration Creates Attitude Certainty: Exploring the Thoughtfulness Heuristic,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95 (2008): 489–509.

以及更为根深蒂固的观点：Jamie Barden 和 Richard E. Petty，“仅仅感知精细加工便能建立态度确定性：探索体贴启发式”，人格与社会心理学杂志 95（2008）：489–509。

such subjects as Cleopatra’s roots : W. Ralph Eubanks, “How History and Hollywood Got ‘Cleopatra’ Wrong,” NPR, November 1, 2010, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130976125 .

诸如克利奥帕特拉的根源等主题：W·拉尔夫·尤班克斯，《历史和好莱坞如何误解了‘克利奥帕特拉’》，美国国家公共电台，2010 年 11 月 1 日，www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130976125。

tyrannosaurs had colorful feathers : Jason Farago, “T. Rex Like You Haven’t Seen Him: With Feathers,” New York Times , March 7, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/arts/design/t-rex-exhibition-american-museum-of-natural-history.html ; Brigit Katz, “T. Rex Was Likely Covered in Scales, Not Feathers,” Smithsonian , June 8, 2017, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603 .

霸王龙拥有色彩斑斓的羽毛：Jason Farago，《你从未见过的霸王龙：长着羽毛》，《纽约时报》，2019 年 3 月 7 日，www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/arts/design/t-rex-exhibition-american-museum-of-natural-history.html；Brigit Katz，《霸王龙很可能覆盖着鳞片，而不是羽毛》，《史密森尼》，2017 年 6 月 8 日，www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603。

sound waves can activate the visual cortex : Alix Spiegel and Lulu Miller, “How to Become Batman,” Invisibilia , NPR, January 23, 2015, www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-become-batman .

声波可以激活视觉皮层：Alix Spiegel 和 Lulu Miller，《如何成为蝙蝠侠》，Invisibilia，NPR，2015 年 1 月 23 日，www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-become-batman。

“blowing smoke up your arse” : Sterling Haynes, “Special Feature: Tobacco Smoke Enemas,” BC Medical Journal 54 (2012): 496–97.

“把烟吹到你的屁股里”：Sterling Haynes，“特别专题：烟草烟雾灌肠剂”，BC Medical Journal 54（2012）：496-97。

the Ponzi scheme : Stephen Greenspan, “Why We Keep Falling for Financial Scams,” Wall Street Journal , January 3, 2009, www.wsj.com/articles/SB123093987596650197 .

庞氏骗局：史蒂芬·格林斯潘，《我们为何不断陷入金融骗局》，《华尔街日报》，2009 年 1 月 3 日，www.wsj.com/articles/SB123093987596650197。

mindsets of three different professions : Philip E. Tetlock, “Social Functionalist Frameworks for Judgment and Choice: Intuitive Politicians, Theologians, and Prosecutors,” Psychological Review 109 (2002): 451–71.

三种不同职业的思维方式：Philip E. Tetlock，“判断和选择的社会功能主义框架：直觉政治家、神学家和检察官”，《心理学评论》109（2002）：451-71。

we marshal arguments : Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments from an Argumentative Theory,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2011): 57–74.

我们整理论证：Hugo Mercier 和 Dan Sperber，“人类为何推理？来自论证理论的论证”，行为与脑科学 34（2011）：57-74。

guilty of “knee-jerk cynicism” : Stephen Greenspan, “Fooled by Ponzi (and Madoff): How Bernard Madoff Made Off with My Money,” eSkeptic, December 23, 2008, www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-12-23/#feature .

犯有“下意识的愤世嫉俗”罪：史蒂芬·格林斯潘，《被庞氏（和麦道夫）愚弄：伯纳德·麦道夫如何卷走我的钱》，eSkeptic，2008 年 12 月 23 日，www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-12-23/#feature。

why we get duped : Greg Griffin, “Scam Expert from CU Expertly Scammed,” Denver Post , March 2, 2009, www.denverpost.com/2009/03/02/scam-expert-from-cu-expertly-scammed .

我们为什么会上当受骗：Greg Griffin，《CU 诈骗专家被巧妙地骗了》，《丹佛邮报》，2009 年 3 月 2 日，www.denverpost.com/2009/03/02/scam-expert-from-cu-expertly-scammed。

scientist is not just a profession : George A. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs , vol. 1, A Theory of Personality (New York: Norton, 1955); Brian R. Little, Who Are You, Really? The Surprising Puzzle of Personality (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017).

科学家不仅仅是一种职业：乔治·A·凯利，《个人建构心理学》第一卷，《人格理论》（纽约：诺顿，1955年）；布莱恩·R·利特尔，《你到底是谁？》令人吃惊的人格之谜（纽约：西蒙与舒斯特，2017年）。

view startups through a scientist’s goggles : Arnaldo Camuffo et al., “A Scientific Approach to Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial,” Management Science 66 (2020): 564–86.

通过科学家的视角看待初创企业：Arnaldo Camuffo 等人，“创业决策的科学方法：来自随机对照试验的证据”，管理科学 66（2020）：564-86。

when business executives compete : Mark Chussil, “Slow Deciders Make Better Strategists,” Harvard Business Review, July 8, 2016, hbr.org/2016/07/slow-deciders-make-better-strategists .

当企业高管竞争时：Mark Chussil，《慢决策者成就更好的战略家》，《哈佛商业评论》，2016 年 7 月 8 日，hbr.org/2016/07/slow-deciders-make-better-strategists。

“To punish me” : Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007).

“惩罚我”：沃尔特·艾萨克森，《爱因斯坦：他的一生和宇宙》（纽约：西蒙与舒斯特出版社，2007 年）。

faster at recognizing patterns : David J. Lick, Adam L. Alter, and Jonathan B. Freeman, “Superior Pattern Detectors Efficiently Learn, Activate, Apply, and Update Social Stereotypes,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147 (2018): 209–27.

更快地识别模式：David J. Lick、Adam L. Alter 和 Jonathan B. Freeman，“高级模式检测器有效地学习、激活、应用和更新社会刻板印象”，《实验心理学杂志：综合》147（2018）：209-27。

the smarter you are : Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Erica C. Dawson, and Paul Slovic, “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioural Public Policy 1 (2017): 54–86.

你越聪明：Dan M. Kahan、Ellen Peters、Erica C. Dawson 和 Paul Slovic，“积极的数字能力和开明的自治”，行为公共政策 1（2017 年）：54-86。

One is confirmation bias : Raymond S. Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” Review of General Psychology 2 (1998): 175–220.

一是确认偏差：Raymond S. Nickerson，“确认偏差：一种以多种形式存在的普遍现象”，《普通心理学评论》2（1998）：175-220。

The other is desirability bias : Ben M. Tappin, Leslie van der Leer, and Ryan T. McKay, “The Heart Trumps the Head: Desirability Bias in Political Belief Revision,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146 (2017): 1143–49; Ziva Kunda, “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108 (1990): 480–98.

另一个是期望偏差：Ben M. Tappin、Leslie van der Leer 和 Ryan T. McKay，“心灵胜过理智：政治信仰修正中的期望偏差”，《实验心理学杂志：总论》146（2017）：1143–49；Ziva Kunda，“动机推理的案例”，《心理学公报》108（1990）：480–98。

“I’m not biased” bias : Emily Pronin, Daniel Y. Lin, and Lee Ross, “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self versus Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002): 369–81.

“我没有偏见”偏见：Emily Pronin、Daniel Y. Lin 和 Lee Ross，“偏见盲点：自我与他人偏见的认知”，人格与社会心理学公报 28（2002 年）：369-81。

smart people are more likely : Richard F. West, Russell J. Meserve, and Keith E. Stanovich, “Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (2012): 506–19.

聪明人更有可能：Richard F. West、Russell J. Meserve 和 Keith E. Stanovich，“认知复杂性并不能减弱偏见盲点”，人格与社会心理学杂志 103（2012 年）：506-19。

being actively open-minded : Keith E. Stanovich and Maggie E. Toplak, “The Need for Intellectual Diversity in Psychological Science: Our Own Studies of Actively Open-Minded Thinking as a Case Study,” Cognition 187 (2019): 156–66; Jonathan Baron et al., “Why Does the Cognitive Reflection Test (Sometimes) Predict Utilitarian Moral Judgment (and Other Things)?,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 4 (2015): 265–84.

积极开放思想：Keith E. Stanovich 和 Maggie E. Toplak，“心理科学中知识多样性的必要性：以我们自己对积极开放思想的研究为例”，《认知》187（2019）：156-66；Jonathan Baron 等人，“为什么认知反射测试（有时）能预测功利主义的道德判断（和其他事情）？”，《记忆与认知应用研究杂志》4（2015）：265-84。

sharper logic and stronger data : Neil Stenhouse et al., “The Potential Role of Actively Open-Minded Thinking in Preventing Motivated Reasoning about Controversial Science,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 57 (2018): 17–24.

更敏锐的逻辑和更有力的数据：Neil Stenhouse 等人，“积极开放思维在防止对有争议的科学进行动机推理中的潜在作用”，环境心理学杂志 57（2018）：17-24。

“to move from one extreme” : Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (New York: HarperCollins, 1996).

“从一个极端走向另一个极端”：米哈里·契克森米哈赖，《创造力：心流与发现与发明心理学》（纽约：哈珀柯林斯出版社，1996 年）。

study of highly creative architects : Donald W. Mackinnon, “The Nature and Nurture of Creative Talent,” American Psychologist 17 (1962): 484–95.

对极具创造力的建筑师的研究：Donald W. Mackinnon，《创造性人才的本质与培养》，《美国心理学家》17（1962）：484-95。

Experts assessed American presidents : Dean Keith Simonton, “Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives,” Political Psychology 27 (2006): 511–26.

专家对美国总统进行评估：迪恩·基思·西蒙顿，“总统的智商、开放性、才智和领导力：对 42 位美国总统的评估和相关性”，政治心理学 27（2006 年）：511-26。

the fat-cat syndrome : Jane E. Dutton and Robert B. Duncan, “The Creation of Momentum for Change through the Process of Strategic Issue Diagnosis,” Strategic Management Journal (May/June 1987): 279–95.

肥猫综合症：Jane E. Dutton 和 Robert B. Duncan，“通过战略问题诊断过程创造变革动力”，《战略管理杂志》（1987 年 5/6 月）：279-95。

“It’s an iconic product” : Jacquie McNish, “RIM’s Mike Lazaridis Walks Out of BBC Interview,” Globe and Mail , April 13, 2011, www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/rims-mike-lazaridis-walks-out-of-bbc-interview/article1322202 .

“这是一款标志性产品”：Jacquie McNish，《RIM 的 Mike Lazaridis 退出 BBC 采访》，《环球邮报》，2011 年 4 月 13 日，www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/rims-mike-lazaridis-walks-out-of-bbc-interview/article1322202。

“The keyboard is one of the reasons” : Sean Silcoff, Jacquie McNish, and Steve Laurantaye, “How BlackBerry Blew It,” Globe and Mail , September 27, 2013, www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/ .

“键盘是原因之一”：Sean Silcoff、Jacquie McNish 和 Steve Laurantaye，《黑莓是如何失败的》，《环球邮报》，2013 年 9 月 27 日，www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/。

“We laughed and said” : Jonathan S. Geller, “Open Letter to BlackBerry Bosses: Senior RIM Exec Tells All as Company Crumbles Around Him,” BGR , June 30, 2011, bgr.com/2011/06/30/open-letter-to-blackberry-bosses-senior-rim-exec-tells-all-as-company-crumbles-around-him .

“我们笑着说”：Jonathan S. Geller，《致黑莓老板的公开信：RIM 高级高管吐露公司崩盘真相》，BGR，2011 年 6 月 30 日，bgr.com/2011/06/30/open-letter-to-blackberry-bosses-senior-rim-exec-tells-all-as-company-crumbles-around-him。

what resurrected Apple : Personal interviews with Tony Fadell, June 1, 2020, and Mike Bell, November 14, 2019; Brian Merchant, The One Device: The Secret History of the iPhone (New York: Little, Brown, 2017).

什么让苹果复活：对托尼·法德尔（Tony Fadell）的个人采访，2020 年 6 月 1 日，以及对迈克·贝尔（Mike Bell）的个人采访，2019 年 11 月 14 日；布莱恩·默钱特（Brian Merchant），《一个设备：iPhone 的秘密历史》（纽约：小布朗出版社，2017 年）。

Chapter 2. The Armchair Quarterback and the Impostor

第二章纸上谈兵的四分卫和冒名顶替者

“Ignorance more frequently” : Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: Penguin Classics, 1871/2004).

“更常见的是无知”：查尔斯·达尔文，《人类的由来》（伦敦：企鹅经典出版社，1871/2004）。

“mentally blind to her blindness” : Gabriel Anton, “On the Self-Awareness of Focal Drain Diseases by the Patient in Cortical Blindness and Cortical Deafness,” Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten 32 (1899): 86–127.

“对自己的失明视而不见”：加布里埃尔·安东，《皮质盲和皮质耳聋患者对局部性漏病的自我意识》，《精神病和神经病学档案》32（1899 年）：86-127。

“ One of the most striking features” : Frederick C. Redlich and Joseph F. Dorsey, “Denial of Blindness by Patients with Cerebral Disease,” Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry 53 (1945): 407–17.

“最引人注目的特征之一”：Frederick C. Redlich 和 Joseph F. Dorsey，《脑疾病患者否认失明》，《神经病学和精神病学档案》53（1945）：407-17。

the Roman philosopher Seneca : Charles André, “Seneca and the First Description of Anton Syndrome,” Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology 38 (2018): 511–13.

罗马哲学家塞内卡：查尔斯·安德烈，“塞内卡和安东综合症的首次描述”，神经眼科杂志38（2018）：511-13。

a deficit of self-awareness : Giuseppe Vallar and Roberta Ronchi, “Anosognosia for Motor and Sensory Deficits after Unilateral Brain Damage: A Review,” Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 24 (2006): 247–57; Howard C. Hughes, Robert Fendrich, and Sarah E. Streeter, “The Diversity of the Human Visual Experience,” in Perception and Its Modalities , ed. Dustin Stokes, Moham Matthen, and Stephen Biggs (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); David Dunning, Self-Insight: Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself (New York: Psychology Press, 2005); Costanza Papagno and Giuseppe Vallar, “Anosognosia for Left Hemiplegia: Babinski’s (1914) Cases,” in Classic Cases in Neuropsychology, vol. 2, ed. Christopher Code et al. (New York: Psychology Press, 2003); Jiann-Jy Chen et al., “Anton-Babinski Syndrome in an Old Patient: A Case Report and Literature Review,” Psychogeriatrics 15 (2015): 58–61; Susan M. McGlynn, “Impaired Awareness of Deficits in a Psychiatric Context: Implications for Rehabilitation,” in Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice , ed. Douglas J. Hacker, John Dunlosky, and Arthur C. Graesser (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998).

自我意识缺陷：Giuseppe Vallar 和 Roberta Ronchi，“单侧脑损伤后运动和感觉缺陷的病觉缺失：综述”，《修复神经病学和神经科学》24（2006）：247–57；Howard C. Hughes、Robert Fendrich 和 Sarah E. Streeter，“人类视觉体验的多样性”，《感知及其模式》，Dustin Stokes、Moham Matthen 和 Stephen Biggs 编（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2015 年）；David Dunning，“自我洞察：认识自我的障碍和弯路”（纽约：心理学出版社，2005 年）；Costanza Papagno 和 Giuseppe Vallar，“左半瘫的病觉缺失：巴宾斯基 (1914) 病例”，《神经心理学经典病例》，第二卷， Christopher Code 等（纽约：心理学出版社，2003 年）；Jiann-Jy Chen 等，“老年患者的安东-巴宾斯基综合征：病例报告和文献综述”，老年精神病学 15（2015 年）：58–61；Susan M. McGlynn，“精神病学背景下缺陷意识受损：对康复的启示”，《教育理论与实践中的元认知》，Douglas J. Hacker、John Dunlosky 和 Arthur C. Graesser 编辑（新泽西州马瓦：埃尔鲍姆出版社，1998 年）。

“My experience and knowledge” : Agence France Presse, “Iceland’s Crisis-Era Central Bank Chief to Run for President,” Yahoo! News, May 8, 2016, www.yahoo.com/news/icelands-crisis-era-central-bank-chief-run-president-152717120.html .

“我的经验和知识”：法新社，“冰岛危机时期央行行长将竞选总统”，雅虎新闻，2016 年 5 月 8 日，www.yahoo.com/news/icelands-crisis-era-central-bank-chief-run-president-152717120.html。

women typically underestimated : Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl, Lisa Slattery Walker, and David J. Woehr, “Gender and Perceptions of Leadership Effectiveness: A Meta-analysis of Contextual Moderators,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2014): 1129–45.

女性通常会被低估：Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl、Lisa Slattery Walker 和 David J. Woehr，“性别与对领导效能的看法：情境调节因素的元分析”，《应用心理学杂志》99（2014 年）：1129-1145。

competence exceeds confidence : Mark R. Leary et al., “The Impostor Phenomenon: Self-Perceptions, Reflected Appraisals, and Interpersonal Strategies,” Journal of Personality 68 (2000): 725–56; Karina K. L. Mak, Sabina Kleitman, and Maree J. Abbott, “Impostor Phenomenon Measurement Scales: A Systematic Review,” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019): 671.

能力超越自信：Mark R. Leary 等人，“冒名顶替现象：自我认知、反思评价和人际策略”，《人格杂志》68（2000）：725–56；Karina K. L. Mak、Sabina Kleitman 和 Maree J. Abbott，“冒名顶替现象测量量表：系统评价”，《心理学前沿》10（2019）：671。

Ig™ Nobel Prize : Improbable, “The 2000 Ig™ Nobel Prize Ceremony,” October 5, 2000, www.improbable.com/ig/2000 .

搞笑诺贝尔奖：不可思议，“2000 年搞笑诺贝尔奖颁奖典礼”，2000 年 10 月 5 日，www.improbable.com/ig/2000。

original Dunning-Kruger studies : Justin Kruger and David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1999): 1121–34.

最初的邓宁-克鲁格研究：贾斯汀·克鲁格和戴维·邓宁，“不熟练且没有意识到：难以认识到自己的无能如何导致自我评价膨胀”，人格与社会心理学杂志 77（1999）：1121-134。

The less intelligent we are : John D. Mayer, A. T. Panter, and David R. Caruso, “When People Estimate Their Personal Intelligence Who Is Overconfident? Who Is Accurate?,” Journal of Personality (May 19, 2020).

我们越不聪明：约翰·D·梅耶、A·T·潘特和大卫·R·卡鲁索，“当人们估计自己的个人智力时，谁过度自信？谁准确？”，《人格杂志》（2020 年 5 月 19 日）。

when economists evaluated : Nicholas Bloom, Renata Lemos, Raffaella Sadun, Daniela Scur, and John Van Reenen, “JEEA-FBBVA Lecture 2013: The New Empirical Economics of Management,” Journal of the European Economic Association 12 (2014): 835–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12094 .

经济学家评估的时间：Nicholas Bloom、Renata Lemos、Raffaella Sadun、Daniela Scur 和 John Van Reenen，“JEEA-FBBVA 讲座 2013：管理的新实证经济学”，欧洲经济协会杂志 12（2014 年）：835–76，https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12094。

it was most rampant : Xavier Cirera and William F. Maloney, The Innovation Paradox (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2017); Nicholas Bloom et al., “Management Practices across Firms and Countries,” Academy of Management Perspectives 26 (2012): 12–33.

最为猖獗：Xavier Cirera 和 William F. Maloney，《创新悖论》（华盛顿特区：世界银行，2017 年）；Nicholas Bloom 等人，“跨企业和国家的管理实践”，《管理学院展望》第 26 卷（2012 年）：12-33。

The more superior participants : Michael P. Hall and Kaitlin T. Raimi, “Is Belief Superiority Justified by Superior Knowledge?,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 76 (2018): 290–306.

更优秀的参与者：Michael P. Hall 和 Kaitlin T. Raimi，“优越的信念是否因优越的知识而合理？”，《实验社会心理学杂志》76（2018）：290–306。

“The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club” : Brian Resnick, “Intellectual Humility: The Importance of Knowing You Might Be Wrong,” Vox , January 4, 2019, www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication .

“邓宁—克鲁格俱乐部的第一条规则”：Brian Resnick，《知识分子的谦逊：知道自己可能犯错的重要性》，Vox，2019 年 1 月 4 日，www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication。

claim knowledge about fictional topics : John Jerrim, Phil Parker, and Nikki Shure, “Bullshitters. Who Are They and What Do We Know about Their Lives?,” IZA Institute of Labor Economics, DP No. 12282, April 2019, ftp.iza.org/dp12282.pdf ; Christopher Ingraham, “Rich Guys Are Most Likely to Have No Idea What They’re Talking About, Study Suggests,” Washington Post , April 26, 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/26/rich-guys-are-most-likely-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about-study-finds .

声称了解虚构主题：John Jerrim、Phil Parker 和 Nikki Shure，“胡说八道者。他们是谁？我们对他们的生活了解多少？”IZA 劳动经济研究所，DP No. 12282，2019 年 4 月，ftp.iza.org/dp12282.pdf；Christopher Ingraham，“研究表明，富人最有可能不知道自己在说什么，”华盛顿邮报，2019 年 4 月 26 日，www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/26/rich-guys-are-most-likely-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about-study-finds。

“giving a tidy demonstration” : Nina Strohminger (@NinaStrohminger), January 8, 2019, twitter.com/NinaStrohminger/status/1082651708617039875?s=20 .

“进行了一次整洁的演示”：Nina Strohminger (@NinaStrohminger)，2019 年 1 月 8 日，twitter.com/NinaStrohminger/status/1082651708617039875?s=20。

On the questions above : Mark L. Wolraich, David B. Wilson, and J. Wade White, “The Effect of Sugar on Behavior and Cognition in Children: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 1617–21; see also Konstantinos Mantantzis et al., “Sugar Rush or Sugar Crash? A Meta-analysis of Carbohydrate Effects on Mood,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 101 (2019): 45–67.

关于上述问题：Mark L. Wolraich、David B. Wilson 和 J. Wade White，《糖对儿童行为和认知的影响：一项荟萃分析》，《美国医学会杂志》274（1995）：1617–21；另请参阅 Konstantinos Mantantzis 等人，《糖冲击还是糖崩溃？碳水化合物对情绪影响的荟萃分析》，《神经科学与生物行为评论》101（2019）：45–67。

people who scored the lowest : Oliver J. Sheldon, David Dunning, and Daniel R. Ames, “Emotionally Unskilled, Unaware, and Uninterested in Learning More: Reactions to Feedback about Deficits in Emotional Intelligence,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2014): 125–37.

得分最低的人：Oliver J. Sheldon、David Dunning 和 Daniel R. Ames，“情感上不熟练、不了解、对学习更多不感兴趣：对情商缺陷反馈的反应”，应用心理学杂志 99（2014 年）：125-37。

Yet motivation is only part : Gilles E. Gignac and Marcin Zajenkowski, “The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is (Mostly) a Statistical Artefact: Valid Approaches to Testing the Hypothesis with Individual Differences Data,” Intelligence 80 (2020): 101449; Tal Yarkoni, “What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Is and Isn’t,” July 7, 2010, www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt .

然而动机只是其中一部分：Gilles E. Gignac 和 Marcin Zajenkowski，“邓宁-克鲁格效应（主要）是一种统计伪影：利用个体差异数据检验假设的有效方法”，Intelligence 80 (2020): 101449；Tal Yarkoni，“邓宁-克鲁格效应是什么，不是什么”，2010 年 7 月 7 日，www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt。

when they’re offered a $100 bill : Joyce Ehrlinger et al., “Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight among the Incompetent,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (2008): 98–121.

当他们拿到一张 100 美元的钞票时：Joyce Ehrlinger 等人，“为什么无技能的人没有意识：进一步探索无能者（缺乏）自我洞察力”，组织行为和人类决策过程 105（2008）：98-121。

We tend to overestimate ourselves : Spencer Greenberg and Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, “You Are Not as Good at Kissing as You Think. But You Are Better at Dancing,” New York Times , April 6, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/overconfidence-men-women.html .

我们往往会高估自己：斯宾塞·格林伯格和塞思·斯蒂芬斯-戴维多维茨，“你并不像你想象的那么擅长接吻。但你更擅长跳舞，”《纽约时报》，2019年4月6日，www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/overconfidence-men-women.html。

simulated zombie apocalypse : Carmen Sanchez and David Dunning, “Overconfidence among Beginners: Is a Little Learning a Dangerous Thing?,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114 (2018): 10–28.

模拟僵尸末日：卡门·桑切斯和大卫·邓宁，“初学者的过度自信：一点点学习是一件危险的事情吗？”，人格与社会心理学杂志114（2018）：10-28。

patient mortality rates : John Q. Young et al., “‘July Effect’: Impact of the Academic Year-End Changeover on Patient Outcomes,” Annals of Internal Medicine 155 (2011): 309–15; Sarah Kliff, “The July Effect Is Real: New Doctors Really Do Make Hospitals More Dangerous,” Vox , July 13, 2014, www.vox.com/2014/7/13/5893653/the-july-effect-is-real-new-doctors-really-do-make-hospitals-more .

患者死亡率：John Q. Young 等人，“‘七月效应’：学年末变化对患者结果的影响”，内科医学年鉴 155（2011 年）：309-15；Sarah Kliff，“七月效应真实存在：新医生确实让医院更危险”，Vox，2014 年 7 月 13 日，www.vox.com/2014/7/13/5893653/the-july-effect-is-real-new-doctors-really-do-make-hospitals-more。

“fiercely loyal henchmen” : Roger Boyes, Meltdown Iceland: Lessons on the World Financial Crisis from a Small Bankrupt Island (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009).

“极其忠诚的追随者”：罗杰·博伊斯 (Roger Boyes)，《崩溃的冰岛：从一个破产的小岛吸取的世界金融危机教训》(纽约：布鲁姆斯伯里出版社，2009 年)。

“arrogance, his absolute conviction” : Boyes, Meltdown Iceland ; “Cracks in the Crust,” Economist , December 11, 2008, www.economist.com/briefing/2008/12/11/cracks-in-the-crust ; Heather Farmbrough, “How Iceland’s Banking Collapse Created an Opportunity,” Forbes , December 23, 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2019/12/23/how-icelands-banking-collapse-created-an-opportunity/#72693f035e97 ; “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis,” Time , February 10, 2009, content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877340,00.html ; John L. Campbell and John A. Hall, The Paradox of Vulnerability: States, Nationalism & the Financial Crisis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017); Robert H. Wade and Silla Sigurgeirsdottir, “Iceland’s Meltdown: The Rise and Fall of International Banking in the North Atlantic,” Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 31 (2011): 684–97; Report of the Special Investigation Commission, April 12, 2010, www.rna.is/eldri-nefndir/addragandi-og-orsakir-falls-islensku-bankanna-2008/skyrsla-nefndarinnar/english ; Daniel Chartier, The End of Iceland’s Innocence: The Image of Iceland in the Foreign Media during the Financial Crisis (Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 2011); “Excerpts: Iceland’s Oddsson,” Wall Street Journal , October 17, 2008, www.wsj.com/articles/SB122418335729241577 ; Geir H. Haarde, “Icelandic Leaders Accused of Negligence,” Financial Times, April 12, 2010, www.ft.com/content/82bb2296-4637-11df-8769-00144feab49a ; “Report on Iceland’s Banking Collapse Blasts Ex-Officials,” Wall Street Journal , April 13, 2010, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303828304575179722049591754 .

“傲慢，他的绝对信念”：博伊斯，《冰岛崩溃》；“地壳裂缝”，《经济学人》，2008 年 12 月 11 日，www.economist.com/briefing/2008/12/11/cracks-in-the-crust；希瑟·法姆布鲁，“冰岛银行业崩溃如何创造机遇”，《福布斯》，2019 年 12 月 23 日，www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2019/12/23/how-icelands-banking-collapse-created-an-opportunity/#72693f035e97； “25 个人应为金融危机负责”，《时代》杂志，2009 年 2 月 10 日，content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877340,00.html；John L. Campbell 和 John A. Hall，《脆弱性悖论：国家、民族主义与金融危机》（新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社，2017 年）；Robert H. Wade 和 Silla Sigurgeirsdottir，《冰岛的崩溃：北大西洋国际银行业的兴衰》，《巴西政治经济学杂志》第 31 卷（2011 年）：684-97 页；特别调查委员会报告，2010 年 4 月 12 日，www.rna.is/eldri-nefndir/addragandi-og-orsakir-falls-islensku-bankanna-2008/skyrsla-nefndarinnar/english；Daniel Chartier，《冰岛纯真的终结：金融危机期间外国媒体中的冰岛形象》（安大略省渥太华：渥太华大学出版社，2011 年）；“摘录：冰岛的 Oddsson”，《华尔街日报》，2008 年 10 月 17 日，www.wsj.com/articles/SB122418335729241577； Geir H. Haarde，“冰岛领导人被指控玩忽职守”，《金融时报》，2010年4月12日，www.ft.com/content/82bb2296-4637-11df-8769-00144feab49a；“冰岛银行业崩溃报告抨击前官员”，《华尔街日报》，2010年4月13日，www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303828304575179722049591754。

“Arrogance is ignorance plus conviction” : Tim Urban, “The Thinking Ladder,” Wait but Why (blog), September 27, 2019, waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html .

“傲慢是无知加上信念”：蒂姆·厄本，《思考阶梯》，Wait but Why（博客），2019 年 9 月 27 日，waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/thinking-ladder.html。

that’s distinct from how much you believe in your methods : Dov Eden, “Means Efficacy: External Sources of General and Specific Subjective Efficacy,” in Work Motivation in the Context of a Globalizing Economy , ed. Miriam Erez, Uwe Kleinbeck, and Henk Thierry (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001); Dov Eden et al., “Augmenting Means Efficacy to Boost Performance: Two Field Experiments,” Journal of Management 36 (2008): 687–713.

这与你对自己方法的信任程度截然不同：Dov Eden，“手段效能：一般和特定主观效能的外部来源”，载于《全球化经济背景下的工作动机》，Miriam Erez、Uwe Kleinbeck 和 Henk Thierry 编（新泽西州马瓦：Erlbaum，2001 年）；Dov Eden 等，“增强手段效能以提升绩效：两项实地实验”，载于《管理学报》第 36 卷（2008 年）：687–713 页。

Spanx founder Sara Blakely : Personal interview with Sara Blakely, September 12, 2019; see also Clare O’Connor, “How Sara Blakely of Spanx Turned $5,000 into $1 Billion,” Forbes , March 26, 2012, www.forbes.com/global/2012/0326/billionaires-12-feature-united-states-spanx-sara-blakely-american-booty.html ; “How Spanx Got Started,” Inc. , January 20, 2012, www.inc.com/sara-blakely/how-sara-blakley-started-spanx.html .

Spanx 创始人 Sara Blakely：2019 年 9 月 12 日对 Sara Blakely 的个人采访；另请参阅 Clare O’Connor 的《Spanx 的 Sara Blakely 如何将 5,000 美元变成 10 亿美元》，《福布斯》，2012 年 3 月 26 日，www.forbes.com/global/2012/0326/billionaires-12-feature-united-states-spanx-sara-blakely-american-booty.html；《Spanx 是如何起步的》，《Inc.》，2012 年 1 月 20 日，www.inc.com/sara-blakely/how-sara-blakley-started-spanx.html。

Confident humility can be taught : Tenelle Porter, “The Benefits of Admitting When You Don’t Know,” Behavioral Scientist , April 30, 2018, behavioralscientist.org/the-benefits-of-admitting-when-you-dont-know .

自信的谦逊是可以培养的：Tenelle Porter，《承认不知道的好处》，《行为科学家》，2018 年 4 月 30 日，behavioralalscientist.org/the-benefits-of-admitting-when-you-dont-know。

In college and graduate school : Thomas Gatzka and Benedikt Hell, “Openness and PostSecondary Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Facet-, Aspect-, and Dimension-Level Correlations,” Journal of Educational Psychology 110 (2018): 355–77.

在大学和研究生院：Thomas Gatzka 和 Benedikt Hell，“开放性与中学后学业成绩：方面、方面和维度级别相关性的元分析”，教育心理学杂志 110（2018）：355-77。

In high school : Tenelle Porter et al., “Intellectual Humility Predicts Mastery Behaviors When Learning,” Learning and Individual Differences 80 (2020): 101888.

在高中：Tenelle Porter 等人，“知识谦逊预测学习时的掌握行为”，学习与个体差异 80 (2020): 101888。

contributing more to their teams : Bradley P. Owens, Michael D. Johnson, and Terence R. Mitchell, “Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership,” Organization Science 24 (2013): 1517–38.

为团队做出更多贡献：Bradley P. Owens、Michael D. Johnson 和 Terence R. Mitchell，“组织中表达的谦逊：对绩效、团队和领导力的影响”，组织科学 24（2013 年）：1517-38。

more attention to how strong evidence is : Mark R. Leary et al., “Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (2017): 793–813.

更加关注证据的有力性：Mark R. Leary 等人，“知识谦逊的认知和人际特征”，人格与社会心理学公报 43（2017）：793–813。

more time reading material that contradicts : Samantha A. Deffler, Mark R. Leary, and Rick H. Hoyle, “Knowing What You Know: Intellectual Humility and Judgments of Recognition Memory,” Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016): 255–59.

花更多时间阅读与之相矛盾的材料：Samantha A. Deffler、Mark R. Leary 和 Rick H. Hoyle 的《了解你所知道的：知识分子的谦逊和对认知记忆的判断》，《人格与个体差异》96（2016 年）：255-59。

most effective leaders score high in both : Bradley P. Owens, Angela S. Wallace, and David A. Waldman, “Leader Narcissism and Follower Outcomes: The Counterbalancing Effect of Leader Humility,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (2015): 1203–13; Hongyu Zhang et al., “CEO Humility, Narcissism and Firm Innovation: A Paradox Perspective on CEO Traits,” Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017): 585–604.

大多数有效领导者在这两方面都得分很高：Bradley P. Owens、Angela S. Wallace 和 David A. Waldman，“领导者自恋与追随者的结果：领导者谦逊的平衡效应”，《应用心理学杂志》100（2015 年）：1203-1213；Hongyu Zhang 等人，“CEO 谦逊、自恋与公司创新：CEO 特质的悖论视角”，《领导力季刊》28（2017 年）：585-604。

Halla Tómasdóttir was polling : Personal interview with Halla Tómasdóttir, February 27, 2019.

Halla Tómasdóttir 正在进行民意调查：Halla Tómasdóttir 的个人采访，2019 年 2 月 27 日。

more than half the people you know have felt like impostors : Jaruwan Sakulku, “The Impostor Phenomenon,” International Journal of Behavioral Science 6 (2011): 75–97.

你认识的人中有超过一半都觉得自己是冒名顶替者：Jaruwan Sakulku，《冒名顶替现象》，《国际行为科学杂志》6（2011）：75-97。

common among women and marginalized groups : Dena M. Bravata et al., “Prevalence, Predictors, and Treatment of Impostor Syndrome: A Systematic Review,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 35 (2020): 1252–75.

在女性和边缘群体中很常见：Dena M. Bravata 等人，“冒名顶替综合症的患病率、预测因素和治疗：系统评价”，《普通内科杂志》35 (2020): 1252–75。

the more often they felt like impostors : Basima Tewfik, “Workplace Impostor Thoughts: Theoretical Conceptualization, Construct Measurement, and Relationships with Work-Related Outcomes,” Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (2019): 3603.

他们越常觉得自己像个冒名顶替者：Basima Tewfik，“职场冒名顶替者思想：理论概念化、构建测量以及与工作相关结果的关系”，可公开访问的宾夕法尼亚大学论文（2019 年）：3603。

I’ve found that confidence can : Adam M. Grant and Amy Wrzesniewski, “I Won’t Let You Down . . . or Will I? Core Self-Evaluations, Other-Orientation, Anticipated Guilt and Gratitude, and Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (2010): 108–21.

我发现自信可以：Adam M. Grant 和 Amy Wrzesniewski，“我不会让你失望……或者我会吗？核心自我评价、他人取向、预期内疚和感激以及工作表现”，《应用心理学杂志》95（2010）：108-21。

we have something to prove : See Christine L. Porath and Thomas S. Bateman, “Self-Regulation: From Goal Orientation to Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2006): 185–92; Samir Nurmohamed, “The Underdog Effect: When Low Expectations Increase Performance,” Academy of Management Journal (July 26, 2020), doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0181 .

我们需要证明一些事情：参见 Christine L. Porath 和 Thomas S. Bateman，“自我调节：从目标导向到工作绩效”，《应用心理学杂志》91（2006 年）：185-92；Samir Nurmohamed，“弱者效应：低期望值会提高绩效”，《管理学院杂志》（2020 年 7 月 26 日），doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0181。

make us better learners : See Albert Bandura and Edwin A. Locke, “Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 87–99.

让我们成为更好的学习者：参见 Albert Bandura 和 Edwin A. Locke，“重新审视消极自我效能和目标效应”，应用心理学杂志 88（2003）：87-99。

“Learning requires the humility” : Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso et al., “Links between Intellectual Humility and Acquiring Knowledge,” Journal of Positive Psychology 15 (2020): 155–70.

“学习需要谦逊”：Elizabeth J. Krumrei-Mancuso 等人，“知识谦逊与获取知识之间的联系”，《积极心理学杂志》15 (2020): 155–70。

seek out second opinions : Danielle V. Tussing, “Hesitant at the Helm: The Effectiveness-Emergence Paradox of Reluctance to Lead” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2018).

寻求第二意见：Danielle V. Tussing，《犹豫不决的掌舵人：不愿领导的有效性-出现悖论》（博士论文，宾夕法尼亚大学，2018 年）。

the result of progress : Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey,” American Psychologist 57 (2002): 705–17; M. Travis Maynard et al., “Modeling Time-Lagged Psychological Empowerment-Performance Relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2014): 1244–53; Dana H. Lindsley, Daniel J. Brass, and James B. Thomas, “Efficacy-Performance Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective,” Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 645–78.

进步的结果：Edwin A. Locke 和 Gary P. Latham，“构建一个实用的目标设定和任务激励理论：35 年的历程”，美国心理学家 57（2002 年）：705-17；M. Travis Maynard 等人，“建模时间滞后的心理授权-绩效关系”，应用心理学杂志 99（2014 年）：1244-53；Dana H. Lindsley、Daniel J. Brass 和 James B. Thomas，“效能-绩效螺旋：一个多层次的视角”，管理学院评论 20（1995 年）：645-78。

Chapter 3. The Joy of Being Wrong

第三章犯错的乐趣

“I have a degree” : Frasier , season 2, episode 12, “Roz in the Doghouse,” January 3, 1995, NBC.

“我有学位”：《欢乐一家亲》，第 2 季，第 12 集，“狗窝里的罗兹”，1995 年 1 月 3 日，NBC。

a wildly unethical study : Henry A. Murray, “Studies of Stressful Interpersonal Disputations,” American Psychologist 18 (1963): 28–36.

一项极不道德的研究：亨利·A·默里，《紧张的人际争论研究》，《美国心理学家》18（1963）：28-36。

“Some may have found the experience” : Richard G. Adams, “Unabomber,” The Atlantic , September 2000, “Letters,” www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/09/letters/378379 .

“有些人可能找到了这种体验”：理查德·G·亚当斯，《大学炸弹客》，《大西洋月刊》，2000 年 9 月，“信件”，www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/09/letters/378379。

events as “highly agreeable” : Alston Chase, A Mind for Murder: The Education of the Unabomber and the Origins of Modern Terrorism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).

事件被认为是“非常令人愉快的”：Alston Chase，《谋杀之心：大学炸弹客的教育和现代恐怖主义的起源》（纽约：W. W. Norton，2004 年）。

What makes an idea interesting : Murray S. Davis, “That’s Interesting!: Toward a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology,” Philosophy of Social Science 1 (1971): 309–44.

什么使得一个想法变得有趣：Murray S. Davis，“这很有趣！：走向社会学的现象学和现象学的社会学”，社会科学哲学 1（1971）：309-44。

moon might originally have formed : Sarah T. Stewart, “Where Did the Moon Come From? A New Theory,” TED Talks, February 2019, www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory .

月球最初可能的形成时间：Sarah T. Stewart，“月球从何而来？一个新理论”，TED 演讲，2019 年 2 月，www.ted.com/talks/sarah_t_stewart_where_did_the_moon_come_from_a_new_theory。

narwhal’s tusk is actually a tooth : Lesley Evans Ogden, “The Tusks of Narwhals Are Actually Teeth That Are Inside-Out,” BBC, October 26, 2015, www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151026-the-tusks-of-narwhals-are-actually-teeth-that-are-inside-out .

独角鲸的獠牙实际上是一颗牙齿：Lesley Evans Ogden，“独角鲸的獠牙实际上是从内而外的牙齿”，BBC，2015 年 10 月 26 日，www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151026-the-tusks-of-narwhals-are-actually-teeth-that-are-inside-out。

miniature dictator living inside our heads : Anthony G. Greenwald, “The Totalitarian Ego: Fabrication and Revision of Personal History,” American Psychologist 35 (1980): 603–18.

生活在我们头脑中的微型独裁者：安东尼·G·格林沃尔德，《极权主义自我：个人历史的捏造和修改》，《美国心理学家》35（1980）：603-18。

“You must not fool yourself” : Richard P. Feynman, “ Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), and “Cargo Cult Science,” Caltech Commencement, 1974, calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm .

“你不能欺骗自己”：理查德·P·费曼，《别再开玩笑了，费曼先生！》：一个好奇人物的冒险（纽约：W. W. Norton，1985 年），以及“货物崇拜科学”，加州理工学院毕业典礼，1974 年，calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm。

“ The Industrial Revolution and its consequences” : “Text of Unabomber Manifesto,” New York Times, May 26, 1996, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html .

“工业革命及其后果”：“大学炸弹客宣言文本”，《纽约时报》，1996 年 5 月 26 日，archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html。

when our core beliefs are challenged : Jonas T. Kaplan, Sarah I. Gimbel, and Sam Harris, “Neural Correlates of Maintaining One’s Political Beliefs in the Face of Counterevidence,” Scientific Reports 6 (2016): 39589.

当我们的核心信念受到挑战时：Jonas T. Kaplan、Sarah I. Gimbel 和 Sam Harris，“面对反证时维持政治信念的神经相关性”，《科学报告》6（2016）：39589。

trigger the amygdala, the primitive “lizard brain” : Joseph LeDoux, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998); Joseph Cesario, David J. Johnson, and Heather L. Eisthen, “Your Brain Is Not an Onion with a Tiny Reptile Inside,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 29 (2020): 255–60.

触发杏仁核，即原始的“蜥蜴脑”：约瑟夫·勒杜克斯，《情绪脑：情绪生活的神秘基础》（纽约：西蒙与舒斯特出版社，1998 年）；约瑟夫·西萨里奥、戴维·J·约翰逊和希瑟·L·艾森，“你的大脑不是里面有小爬行动物的洋葱”，《心理科学新方向》第 29 卷（2020 年）：255-260 页。

“Presented with someone else’s argument” : Elizabeth Kolbert, “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds,” New Yorker , February 27, 2017, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds .

“用别人的论点来表达”：伊丽莎白·科尔伯特，《为什么事实不能改变我们的想法》，《纽约客》，2017 年 2 月 27 日，www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds。

First, our wrong opinions : Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think (New York: Penguin, 2011).

首先，我们的错误观点：Eli Pariser，《过滤泡沫：新的个性化网络如何改变我们的阅读内容和思维方式》（纽约：企鹅出版社，2011 年）。

I gave a speech : ideas42 Behavioral Summit, New York, NY, October 13, 2016.

我发表了演讲：ideas42 行为峰会，纽约州纽约市，2016 年 10 月 13 日。

He told me afterward : Personal interview with Daniel Kahneman, June 13, 2019.

他后来告诉我：2019 年 6 月 13 日对丹尼尔·卡尼曼的个人采访。

Even positive changes : Corey Lee M. Keyes, “Subjective Change and Its Consequences for Emotional Well-Being,” Motivation and Emotion 24 (2000): 67–84.

甚至是积极的变化：Corey Lee M. Keyes，“主观变化及其对情绪健康的影响”，动机与情绪 24（2000）：67-84。

evolving your identity : Anthony L. Burrow et al., “Derailment: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Adjustment Correlates of Perceived Change in Self and Direction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118 (2020): 584–601.

不断发展你的身份：Anthony L. Burrow 等人，“脱轨：感知到的自我和方向变化的概念化、测量和调整相关因素”，人格与社会心理学杂志 118 (2020): 584–601。

you can tell a coherent story : Michael J. Chandler et al., “Personal Persistence, Identity Development, and Suicide: A Study of Native and Non-Native North American Adolescents,” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 68 (2003): 1–138 .

你可以讲述一个连贯的故事：Michael J. Chandler 等人，“个人坚持、身份发展和自杀：对北美本土和非本土青少年的研究”，儿童发展研究学会专著 68（2003）：1-138。

when people felt detached : Kaylin Ratner et al., “Depression and Derailment: A Cyclical Model of Mental Illness and Perceived Identity Change,” Clinical Psychological Science 7 (2019): 735–53.

当人们感到孤立时：Kaylin Ratner 等人，“抑郁与脱轨：精神疾病和感知身份变化的周期性模型”，临床心理科学 7（2019）：735–53。

“If you don’t look back” : Personal interview with Ray Dalio, October 11, 2017; “How to Love Criticism,” WorkLife with Adam Grant , February 28, 2018.

“如果你不回头”：与雷·达利欧的个人访谈，2017 年 10 月 11 日；“如何热爱批评”，与亚当·格兰特一起在《职场生活》中撰文，2018 年 2 月 28 日。

meet Jean-Pierre Beugoms : Personal interviews with Jean-Pierre Beugoms, June 26 and July 22, 2019.

与 Jean-Pierre Beugoms 会面：2019 年 6 月 26 日和 7 月 22 日对 Jean-Pierre Beugoms 进行个人采访。

only 6 percent : Nate Silver, “How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump,” FiveThirtyEight, May 18, 2016, fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump .

仅有 6%：Nate Silver，《我如何像评论家一样行事并搞砸了唐纳德·特朗普》，FiveThirtyEight，2016 年 5 月 18 日，fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump。

Trump had a 68 percent chance : Andrew Sabisky, “Just-World Bias Has Twisted Media Coverage of the Donald Trump Campaign,” International Business Times , March 9, 2016, www.ibtimes.co.uk/just-world-bias-has-twisted-media-coverage-donald-trump-campaign-1547151 .

特朗普获胜的几率为 68%：安德鲁·萨比斯基，《公正世界偏见扭曲了媒体对唐纳德·特朗普竞选活动的报道》，《国际财经时报》，2016 年 3 月 9 日，www.ibtimes.co.uk/just-world-bias-has-twisted-media-coverage-donald-trump-campaign-1547151。

It’s possible to change : Daryl R. Van Tongeren et al., “Religious Residue: Cross-Cultural Evidence That Religious Psychology and Behavior Persist Following Deidentification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (March 12, 2020).

改变是可能的：Daryl R. Van Tongeren 等人，《宗教残留：跨文化证据表明，宗教心理和行为在去身份化后依然存在》，《人格与社会心理学杂志》（2020 年 3 月 12 日）。

“Mastery at manipulating the media” : Jean-Pierre Beugoms, “Who Will Win the Republican Party Nomination for the U.S. Presidential Election?,” Good Judgment Open, November 18, 2015, www.gjopen.com/comments/44283 .

“精通操纵媒体”：让-皮埃尔·博贡，《谁将赢得美国总统大选共和党提名？》，《Good Judgment Open》，2015 年 11 月 18 日，www.gjopen.com/comments/44283。

forecasting skill is less : Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner, Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction (New York: Random House, 2015); Philip E. Tetlock, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).

预测技能较差：Philip E. Tetlock 和 Dan Gardner，《超级预测：预测的艺术与科学》（纽约：兰登书屋，2015 年）；Philip E. Tetlock，《专家政治判断：它有多好？我们如何知道？》（新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社，2005 年）。

grit and ambition : Uriel Haran, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, “The Role of Actively Open-Minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration,” Judgment and Decision Making 8 (2013): 188–201.

勇气和雄心：Uriel Haran、Ilana Ritov 和 Barbara A. Mellers，“积极开放思维在信息获取、准确性和校准中的作用”，判断与决策 8（2013 年）：188-201。

The single most important driver : Barbara Mellers et al., “The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis: Drivers of Prediction Accuracy in World Politics,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 21 (2015): 1–14.

最重要的驱动因素：Barbara Mellers 等人，“情报分析心理学：世界政治预测准确性的驱动因素”，《实验心理学杂志：应用》21（2015）：1-14。

The superforecasters updated their predictions : Barbara Mellers et al., “Identifying and Cultivating Superforecasters as a Method of Improving Probabilistic Predictions,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (2015): 267–81.

超级预测者更新了他们的预测：Barbara Mellers 等人，“识别和培养超级预测者作为改进概率预测的方法”，心理科学视角 10（2015）：267-81。

“Although small amounts of evidence” : Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error (New York: HarperCollins, 2010).

“尽管证据很少”：凯瑟琳·舒尔茨，《犯错：误差边缘的冒险》（纽约：哈珀柯林斯出版社，2010 年）。

They saw their opinions : Keith E. Stanovich and Richard F. West, “Reasoning Independently of Prior Belief and Individual Differences in Actively Open-Minded Thinking,” Journal of Educational Psychology 89 (1997): 342–57.

他们看到了自己的观点：Keith E. Stanovich 和 Richard F. West，“独立于先前信念和积极开放思维中的个体差异进行推理”，教育心理学杂志 89（1997）：342-57。

“It’s not a lie” : Seinfeld , season 6, episode 16, “The Beard,” February 9, 1995, NBC.

“这不是谎言”：《宋飞传》，第六季，第 16 集，“胡子”，1995 年 2 月 9 日，NBC。

world’s top forecasters is Kjirste Morrell : Personal interview with Kjirste Morrell, May 21, 2019.

世界顶级预测者是 Kjirste Morrell：对 Kjirste Morrell 的个人采访，2019 年 5 月 21 日。

identifying even a single reason why : Asher Koriat, Sarah Lichtenstein, and Baruch Fischhoff, “Reasons for Confidence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6 (1980): 107–18.

找出哪怕一个原因：Asher Koriat、Sarah Lichtenstein 和 Baruch Fischhoff，《自信的理由》，《实验心理学杂志：人类学习与记忆》6（1980）：107-18。

the more frequently we make fun of ourselves : “Self-Defeating Humor Promotes Psychological Well-Being, Study Reveals,” ScienceDaily , February 8, 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208104225.htm .

我们越频繁地自嘲：“研究表明，自嘲式幽默有助于心理健康”，《科学日报》，2018 年 2 月 8 日，www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180208104225.htm。

“People who are right a lot” : Mark Sullivan, “Jeff Bezos at re:MARS,” Fast Company , June 6, 2019, www.fastcompany.com/90360687/jeff-bezos-business-advice-5-tips-from-amazons-remars?_ga=2.101831750.679949067.1593530400-358702464.1558396776 .

“经常正确的人”：马克·沙利文，《杰夫·贝佐斯出席 re:MARS 大会》，《Fast Company》，2019 年 6 月 6 日，www.fastcompany.com/90360687/jeff-bezos-business-advice-5-tips-from-amazons-remars?_ga=2.101831750.679949067.1593530400-358702464.1558396776。

When men make self-deprecating jokes : Jonathan B. Evans et al., “Gender and the Evaluation of Humor at Work,” Journal of Applied Psychology 104 (2019): 1077–87.

当男人开自嘲的玩笑时：Jonathan B. Evans 等人，“性别与工作中幽默的评价”，《应用心理学杂志》104（2019）：1077–87。

British physicist Andrew Lyne : John Noble Wilford, “Astronomer Retracts His Discovery of Planet,” New York Times, January 16, 1992, www.nytimes.com/1992/01/16/us/astronomer-retracts-his-discovery-of-planet.html .

英国物理学家安德鲁·莱恩：约翰·诺布尔·威尔福德，《天文学家撤回其发现的行星》，《纽约时报》，1992 年 1 月 16 日，www.nytimes.com/1992/01/16/us/astronomer-retracts-his-discovery-of-planet.html。

“the most honorable thing I’ve ever seen” : Michael D. Lemonick, “When Scientists Screw Up,” Slate , October 15, 2012, slate.com/technology/2012/10/scientists-make-mistakes-how-astronomers-and-biologists-correct-the-record-when-theyve-screwed-up.html .

“这是我见过的最光荣的事情”：迈克尔·D·莱蒙尼克，《当科学家搞砸了》Slate杂志，2012年10月15日，slate.com/technology/2012/10/scientists-make-mistakes-how-astronomers-and-biologists-correct-the-record-when-theyve-screwed-up.html。

admitting we were wrong : Adam K. Fetterman and Kai Sassenberg, “The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission Among Scientists,” PLoS ONE 10 (2015): e0143723.

承认我们错了：Adam K. Fetterman 和 Kai Sassenberg，《科学家因重复实验失败和承认错误而受到的声誉影响》，PLoS ONE 10（2015 年）：e0143723。

display of honesty : Adam K. Fetterman et al., “On the Willingness to Admit Wrongness: Validation of a New Measure and an Exploration of Its Correlates,” Personality and Individual Differences 138 (2019): 193–202.

诚实的表现：Adam K. Fetterman 等人，“论承认错误的意愿：一项新测量的验证及其相关因素的探索”，人格与个体差异 138 (2019): 193–202。

“whose fault it is” : Will Smith, “Fault vs Responsibility,” YouTube, January 31, 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=USsqkd-E9ag .

“这是谁的错”：威尔·史密斯，《过错与责任》，YouTube，2018 年 1 月 31 日，www.youtube.com/watch?v=USsqkd-E9ag。

“It was a highly unpleasant experience” : Chase, A Mind for Murder .

“这是一次非常不愉快的经历”：蔡斯，《谋杀之心》。

unsettled by the content or the structure : See James Q. Wilson, “In Search of Madness,” New York Times , January 15, 1998, www.nytimes.com/1998/01/15/opinion/in-search-of-madness.html .

对内容或结构感到不安：参见詹姆斯·Q·威尔逊 (James Q. Wilson) 的《寻找疯狂》，《纽约时报》，1998 年 1 月 15 日，www.nytimes.com/1998/01/15/opinion/in-search-of-madness.html。

Chapter 4. The Good Fight Club

第四章傲骨搏击俱乐部

“Arguments are extremely vulgar” : Oscar Wilde, “The Remarkable Rocket,” in The Happy Prince and Other Stories , ed. L. Carr (London: Heritage Illustrated Publishing, 1888/2014).

“争论极其粗俗”：奥斯卡·王尔德，《非凡的火箭》，载于《快乐王子及其他故事》，L.卡尔编（伦敦：遗产插图出版社，1888/2014）。

Wilbur and Orville Wright : David McCullough, The Wright Brothers (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015); Tom D. Crouch, The Bishop’s Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003); James Tobin, To Conquer the Air (New York: Free Press, 2003); Peter L. Jakab and Rick Young, eds., The Published Writings of Wilbur and Orville Wright (Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 2000); Fred Howard, Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers (New York: Ballantine, 1988).

威尔伯和奥维尔·莱特：大卫·麦卡洛，《莱特兄弟》（纽约：西蒙与舒斯特出版社，2015 年）；汤姆·D·克劳奇，《主教的儿子：威尔伯和奥维尔·莱特的一生》（纽约：W. W. Norton 出版社，2003 年）；詹姆斯·托宾，《征服天空》（纽约：自由出版社，2003 年）；彼得·L·雅各布和里克·杨编，《威尔伯和奥维尔·莱特出版的作品》（华盛顿特区：史密森尼出版社，2000 年）；弗雷德·霍华德，《威尔伯和奥维尔：莱特兄弟传》（纽约：巴兰坦出版社，1988 年）。

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler : Jesse David Fox, “The History of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler’s Best Friendship,” Vulture , December 15, 2015, www.vulture.com/2013/01/history-of-tina-and-amys-best-friendship.html .

蒂娜·菲和艾米·波勒：杰西·大卫·福克斯，《蒂娜·菲和艾米·波勒最好的友谊史》，《秃鹫》，2015 年 12 月 15 日，www.vulture.com/2013/01/history-of-tina-and-amys-best-friendship.html。

Paul McCartney was teaching : Michael Gallucci, “The Day John Lennon Met Paul McCartney,” Ultimate Classic Rock, July 6, 2015, ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lennon-meets-paul-mccartney .

保罗·麦卡特尼 (Paul McCartney) 授课：迈克尔·加卢奇 (Michael Gallucci)，《约翰·列侬遇见保罗·麦卡特尼的那一天》，《终极经典摇滚》，2015 年 7 月 6 日，ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lennon-meets-paul-mccartney。

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream : Rosanna Greenstreet, “How We Met: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield,” Independent , May 28, 1995, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/how-we-met-ben-cohen-and-jerry-greenfield-1621559.html .

Ben & Jerry’s 冰淇淋：Rosanna Greenstreet，《我们如何相遇：Ben Cohen 和 Jerry Greenfield》，《独立报》，1995 年 5 月 28 日，www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/how-we-met-ben-cohen-and-jerry-greenfield-1621559.html。

what Etty calls relationship conflict : Karen A. Jehn, “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995): 256–82.

Etty 所说的关系冲突：Karen A. Jehn，“对群体内冲突的好处和坏处的多方法考察”，《行政科学季刊》40（1995 年）：256-82。

I hate your stinking guts : Penelope Spheeris et al., The Little Rascals , directed by Penelope Spheeris, Universal Pictures, 1994.

我讨厌你的臭胆量：佩内洛普·斯菲里斯 (Penelope Spheeris) 等人，《小捣蛋鬼》，佩内洛普·斯菲里斯 (Penelope Spheeris) 执导，环球影业，1994 年。

you warthog-faced buffoon : William Goldman, The Princess Bride , directed by Rob Reiner, 20th Century Fox, 1987.

你这个疣猪脸小丑：威廉·戈德曼，《公主新娘》，罗伯·莱纳执导，二十世纪福克斯，1987 年。

You bob for apples in the toilet : David Mickey Evans and Robert Gunter, The Sandlot , directed by David Mickey Evans, 20th Century Fox, 1993.

你在马桶里咬苹果：大卫·米奇·埃文斯 (David Mickey Evans) 和罗伯特·冈特 (Robert Gunter)，《沙地传奇》，由大卫·米奇·埃文斯 (David Mickey Evans) 执导，20 世纪福克斯公司，1993 年。

more than a hundred studies : Frank R. C. de Wit, Lindred L. Greer, and Karen A. Jehn, “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (2012): 360–90.

一百多项研究：Frank R. C. de Wit、Lindred L. Greer 和 Karen A. Jehn，“群体内冲突的悖论：一项元分析”，《应用心理学杂志》97（2012 年）：360-90。

more original ideas in Chinese technology companies : Jiing-Lih Farh, Cynthia Lee, and Crystal I. C. Farh, “Task Conflict and Creativity: A Question of How Much and When,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (2010): 1173–80.

中国科技公司中更多原创的想法：Jiing-Lih Farh、Cynthia Lee 和 Crystal I. C. Farh，“任务冲突和创造力：多少和何时的问题”，应用心理学杂志 95（2010）：1173-80。

innovate more in Dutch delivery services : Carsten K. W. De Dreu, “When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams,” Journal of Management 32 (2006): 83–107.

荷兰快递服务的更多创新：Carsten K. W. De Dreu，“太少或太多都会造成伤害：任务冲突和团队创新之间的曲线关系的证据”，管理学报第32卷（2006年）：83-107页。

make better decisions in American hospitals : Robert S. Dooley and Gerald E. Fryxell, “Attaining Decision Quality and Commitment from Dissent: The Moderating Effects of Loyalty and Competence in Strategic Decision-Making Teams,” Academy of Management Journal 42 (1999): 389–402.

在美国医院做出更好的决策：Robert S. Dooley 和 Gerald E. Fryxell，“从异议中获得决策质量和承诺：忠诚度和能力在战略决策团队中的调节作用”，管理学院期刊 42（1999 年）：389-402。

“The absence of conflict” : Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy, and L. J. Bourgeois III, “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight,” Harvard Business Review , July–August 1997, 77–85.

“没有冲突”：Kathleen M. Eisenhardt、Jean L. Kahwajy 和 L. J. Bourgeois III，《管理团队如何才能打好一场胜仗》，《哈佛商业评论》，1997 年 7 月 - 8 月，第 77-85 页。

Kids whose parents clash constructively : Kathleen McCoy, E. Mark Cummings, and Patrick T. Davies, “Constructive and Destructive Marital Conflict, Emotional Security and Children’s Prosocial Behavior,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50 (2009): 270–79.

父母发生建设性冲突的孩子：Kathleen McCoy、E. Mark Cummings 和 Patrick T. Davies，“建设性和破坏性婚姻冲突、情感安全和儿童的亲社会行为”，儿童心理学和精神病学杂志 50（2009）：270-79。

architects were more likely : Donald W. Mackinnon, “Personality and the Realization of Creative Potential,” American Psychologist 20 (1965): 273–81.

建筑师更有可能：Donald W. Mackinnon，“人格与创造潜能的实现”，美国心理学家 20（1965）：273-81。

“tense but secure” : Paula Olszewski, Marilynn Kulieke, and Thomas Buescher, “The Influence of the Family Environment on the Development of Talent: A Literature Review,” Journal for the Education of the Gifted 11 (1987): 6–28.

“紧张但有安全感”：Paula Olszewski、Marilynn Kulieke 和 Thomas Buescher，《家庭环境对人才发展的影响：文献综述》，《天才教育杂志》11（1987 年）：6-28。

“The creative person-to-be” : Robert S. Albert, ed., Genius & Eminence (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1992).

“未来的创意之人”：罗伯特·S·阿尔伯特（Robert S. Albert）编辑，《天才与卓越》（牛津：帕加马出版社，1992 年）。

It’s called agreeableness : Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell, Jennifer M. Knack, and Haylie L. Gomez, “The Psychology of Nice People,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4 (2010): 1042–56; Robert R. McCrae and Antonio Terraciano, “National Character and Personality,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (2006): 156–61.

这就是所谓的宜人性：Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell、Jennifer M. Knack 和 Haylie L. Gomez，“好人的心理学”，社会与人格心理学指南 4（2010 年）：1042-56；Robert R. McCrae 和 Antonio Terraciano，“民族性格与人格”，心理科学新方向 15（2006 年）：156-61。

analysis of over 40 million tweets : Bryor Snefjella, Daniel Schmidtke, and Victor Kuperman, “National Character Stereotypes Mirror Language Use: A Study of Canadian and American Tweets,” PLoS ONE 13 (2018): e0206188.

对超过 4000 万条推文的分析：Bryor Snefjella、Daniel Schmidtke 和 Victor Kuperman，“国家性格刻板印象反映语言使用：对加拿大和美国推文的研究”，PLoS ONE 13（2018 年）：e0206188。

to become engineers and lawyers : Henk T. van der Molen, Henk G. Schmidt, and Gerard Kruisman, “Personality Characteristics of Engineers,” European Journal of Engineering Education 32 (2007): 495–501; Gidi Rubinstein, “The Big Five among Male and Female Students of Different Faculties,” Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005): 1495–503.

成为工程师和律师：Henk T. van der Molen、Henk G. Schmidt 和 Gerard Kruisman，“工程师的个性特征”，欧洲工程教育杂志 32（2007 年）：495-501；Gidi Rubinstein，“不同院系男女学生的五大性格特质”，个性与个体差异 38（2005 年）：1495-503。

If you’re highly disagreeable : Stéphane Côté and D. S. Moskowitz, “On the Dynamic Covariation between Interpersonal Behavior and Affect: Prediction from Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998): 1032–46.

如果你非常不讨人喜欢：Stéphane Côté 和 D. S. Moskowitz，“论人际行为和情感之间的动态协变：从神经质、外向性和宜人性进行预测”，人格与社会心理学杂志 75（1998）：1032-46。

When I studied Pixar : Personal interviews with Brad Bird, November 8, 2018, and April 28, 2020; Nicole Grindle, October 19, 2018, and March 17, 2020; and John Walker, November 21, 2018, and March 24, 2020; “The Creative Power of Misfits,” WorkLife with Adam Grant , March 5, 2019; Hayagreeva Rao, Robert Sutton, and Allen P. Webb, “Innovation Lessons from Pixar: An Interview with Oscar-Winning Director Brad Bird,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 1, 2008, www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/innovation-lessons-from-pixar-an-interview-with-oscar-winning-director-brad-bird ; The Making of “The Incredibles,” directed by Rick Butler, Pixar, 2005; Alec Bojalad, “ The Incredibles 2 : Brad Bird on Family, Blu-Ray Extras, and More,” Den of Geek, October 24, 2018, www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-incredibles-2-brad-bird-on-family-blu-ray-extras-and-more .

当我研究皮克斯时：对布拉德·伯德的个人访谈，2018 年 11 月 8 日和 2020 年 4 月 28 日；妮可·格林德尔，2018 年 10 月 19 日和 2020 年 3 月 17 日；以及约翰·沃克，2018 年 11 月 21 日和 2020 年 3 月 24 日；“不适应者的创造力”，与亚当·格兰特一起在 WorkLife 中，2019 年 3 月 5 日；Hayagreeva Rao、Robert Sutton 和 Allen P. Webb，“皮克斯的创新经验：对奥斯卡获奖导演布拉德·伯德的访谈”，麦肯锡季刊，2008 年 4 月 1 日，www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/innovation-lessons-from-pixar-an-interview-with-oscar-winning-director-brad-bird；《超人总动员》的制作过程，导演为里克·巴特勒，皮克斯，2005 年；亚历克·博加拉德，《超人总动员 2：布拉德·伯德的家庭生活、蓝光额外内容及更多》，Den of Geek，2018 年 10 月 24 日，www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-incredibles-2-brad-bird-on-family-blu-ray-extras-and-more。

disagreeable people speak up more frequently : Jeffery A. LePine and Linn Van Dyne, “Voice and Cooperative Behavior as Contrasting Forms of Contextual Performance: Evidence of Differential Relationships with Big Five Personality Characteristics and Cognitive Ability,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001): 326–36.

令人讨厌的人会更频繁地发声：Jeffery A. LePine 和 Linn Van Dyne，“声音和合作行为作为情境表现的对比形式：与五大人格特征和认知能力的差异关系的证据”，应用心理学杂志 86（2001）：326-36。

especially when leaders aren’t receptive : Samuel T. Hunter and Lily Cushenbery, “Is Being a Jerk Necessary for Originality? Examining the Role of Disagreeableness in the Sharing and Utilization of Original Ideas,” Journal of Business and Psychology 30 (2015): 621–39.

尤其是当领导者不愿接受时：Samuel T. Hunter 和 Lily Cushenbery，“为了原创，做个混蛋是必要的吗？考察不友善在分享和运用原创想法中的作用”，《商业与心理学杂志》第 30 卷（2015 年）：621-639 页。

foster more task conflict : Leslie A. DeChurch and Michelle A. Marks, “Maximizing the Benefits of Task Conflict: The Role of Conflict Management,” International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (2001): 4–22.

促进更多的任务冲突：Leslie A. DeChurch 和 Michelle A. Marks，“最大化任务冲突的益处：冲突管理的作用”，国际冲突管理杂志 12（2001）：4-22。

dissatisfaction promotes creativity only : Jing Zhou and Jennifer M. George, “When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice,” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2001): 682–96.

不满只会促进创造力：Jing Zhou 和 Jennifer M. George，“当工作不满引发创造力：鼓励表达自己的声音”，《管理学院期刊》44（2001）：682-96。

cultural misfits are : Amir Goldberg et al., “Fitting In or Standing Out? The Tradeoffs of Structural and Cultural Embeddedness,” American Sociological Review 81 (2016): 1190–222.

文化不适应者包括：Amir Goldberg 等人，“融入还是脱颖而出？结构与文化嵌入的权衡”，《美国社会学评论》81（2016 年）：1190-222。

In building a team : Joeri Hofmans and Timothy A. Judge, “Hiring for Culture Fit Doesn’t Have to Undermine Diversity,” Harvard Business Review , September 18, 2019, hbr.org/2019/09/hiring-for-culture-fit-doesnt-have-to-undermine-diversity .

在组建团队方面：Joeri Hofmans 和 Timothy A. Judge，“招聘符合文化的人才不必破坏多样性”，《哈佛商业评论》，2019 年 9 月 18 日，hbr.org/2019/09/hiring-for-culture-fit-doesnt-have-to-undermine-diversity。

CEOs who indulge flattery : Sun Hyun Park, James D. Westphal, and Ithai Stern, “Set Up for a Fall: The Insidious Effects of Flattery and Opinion Conformity toward Corporate Leaders,” Administrative Science Quarterly 56 (2011): 257–302.

纵容奉承的首席执行官：Sun Hyun Park、James D. Westphal 和 Ithai Stern，“为失败做好准备：奉承和舆论一致性对企业领导者的潜在影响”，《行政科学季刊》56（2011 年）：257-302。

when employees received tough feedback : Francesca Gino, “Research: We Drop People Who Give Us Critical Feedback,” Harvard Business Review , September 16, 2016, hbr.org/2016/09/research-we-drop-people-who-give-us-critical-feedback .

当员工收到严厉反馈时：Francesca Gino，“研究：我们会抛弃那些给我们批评性反馈的人”，《哈佛商业评论》，2016 年 9 月 16 日，hbr.org/2016/09/research-we-drop-people-who-give-us-critical-feedback。

“murder boards” to stir up : William Safire, “On Language: Murder Board at the Skunk Works,” New York Times , October 11, 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/10/11/magazine/on-language-murder-board-at-the-skunk-works.html .

引起轰动的“谋杀板”：威廉·萨菲尔，《论语言：臭鼬工厂的谋杀板》，《纽约时报》，1987 年 10 月 11 日，www.nytimes.com/1987/10/11/magazine/on-language-murder-board-at-the-skunk-works.html。

At X, Google’s “moonshot factory” : Derek Thompson, “Google X and the Science of Radical Creativity,” The Atlantic , November 2017, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/x-google-moonshot-factory/540648 .

在谷歌的“登月工厂”X：德里克·汤普森，《Google X 和激进创造力的科学》，《大西洋月刊》，2017 年 11 月，www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/x-google-moonshot-factory/540648。

“The most essential gift” : The Cambridge Companion to Hemingway , ed. Scott Donaldson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

“最重要的礼物”：《剑桥海明威指南》，斯科特·唐纳森编辑（剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，1996 年）。

How well we take criticism : David Yeager et al., “Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust: Wise Interventions to Provide Critical Feedback across the Racial Divide,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2014): 804–24.

我们如何接受批评：David Yeager 等人，“打破不信任的循环：跨越种族鸿沟提供批判性反馈的明智干预”，实验心理学杂志：总论 143（2014）：804-24。

people who lack power or status : Elizabeth W. Morrison, “Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research,” Academy of Management Annals 5 (2011): 373–412; Charlan Jeanne Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (New York: Basic Books, 2018).

缺乏权力或地位的人：Elizabeth W. Morrison，《员工建言行为：整合与未来研究方向》，《管理学院年鉴》5（2011 年）：373-412；Charlan Jeanne Nemeth，《为麻烦制造者辩护：生活和商业中的异议力量》（纽约：Basic Books，2018 年）。

Agreeable people were significantly more : Jennifer A. Chatman and Sigal G. Barsade, “Personality, Organizational Culture, and Cooperation: Evidence from a Business Simulation,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1995): 423–43.

随和的人明显更多：Jennifer A. Chatman 和 Sigal G. Barsade，“个性、组织文化和合作：来自商业模拟的证据”，《行政科学季刊》40（1995 年）：423-43。

A major problem with task conflict : De Wit, Greer, and Jehn, “The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict.”

任务冲突的一个主要问题：De Wit、Greer 和 Jehn，“群体内部冲突的悖论”。

framing a dispute as a debate : Ming-Hong Tsai and Corinne Bendersky, “The Pursuit of Information Sharing: Expressing Task Conflicts as Debates vs. Disagreements Increases Perceived Receptivity to Dissenting Opinions in Groups,” Organization Science 27 (2016): 141–56.

将争议定义为辩论：Ming-Hong Tsai 和 Corinne Bendersky，“追求信息共享：将任务冲突表达为辩论而非分歧可提高群体对不同意见的感知接受度”，组织科学 27（2016）：141-56。

why they favor particular policies : Philip M. Fernbach et al., “Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding,” Psychological Science 24 (2013): 939–46.

他们为什么支持特定的政策：Philip M. Fernbach 等人，“理解的错觉支持了政治极端主义”，心理科学 24（2013）：939-46。

illusion of explanatory depth : Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil, “The Misunderstood Limits of Folk Science: An Illusion of Explanatory Depth,” Cognitive Science 26 (2002): 521–62.

解释深度的错觉：Leonid Rozenblit 和 Frank Keil，“民间科学被误解的局限：解释深度的错觉”，认知科学 26（2002）：521-62。

surprised by how much they struggle : Matthew Fisher and Frank Keil, “The Curse of Expertise: When More Knowledge Leads to Miscalibrated Explanatory Insight,” Cognitive Science 40 (2016): 1251–69.

他们对自己的挣扎程度感到惊讶：马修·费舍尔和弗兰克·凯尔，“专业知识的诅咒：当更多的知识导致错误的解释洞察力时”，认知科学40（2016）：1251-69。

how little they actually know : Dan R. Johnson, Meredith P. Murphy, and Riley M. Messer, “Reflecting on Explanatory Ability: A Mechanism for Detecting Gaps in Causal Knowledge,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145 (2016): 573–88.

他们实际上知道的太少了：Dan R. Johnson、Meredith P. Murphy 和 Riley M. Messer，“反思解释能力：一种检测因果知识差距的机制”，《实验心理学杂志：综合》145（2016 年）：573–88。

Chapter 5. Dances with Foes

第五章与敌共舞

“Exhausting someone in argument” : Tim Kreider, We Learn Nothing: Essays (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012).

“在争论中耗尽某人的精力”：蒂姆·克雷德，《我们什么也没学到：散文》（纽约：西蒙与舒斯特出版社，2012 年）。

introduced to Harish : Personal interview with Harish Natarajan, May 23, 2019; “Live Debate: IBM Project Debater,” IntelligenceSquared Debates, YouTube, February 11, 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3u-1yttrVw .

向 Harish 介绍：Harish Natarajan 的个人访谈，2019 年 5 月 23 日；“现场辩论：IBM 项目辩论者”，IntelligenceSquared Debates，YouTube，2019 年 2 月 11 日，www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3u-1yttrVw。

evidence that early access to education : Nicholas Kristof, “Too Small to Fail,” New York Times, June 2, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/opinion/building-childrens-brains.html .

有证据表明，早期接受教育：Nicholas Kristof，《小到不能倒》，《纽约时报》，2016 年 6 月 2 日，www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/opinion/building-childrens-brains.html。

It’s more like a dance : George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

它更像是一种舞蹈：乔治·莱考夫和马克·约翰逊，《我们赖以生存的隐喻》（芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1980 年）。

what expert negotiators do differently : Neil Rackham, “The Behavior of Successful Negotiators,” in Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases , ed. Roy Lewicki, Bruce Barry, and David Saunders (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980/2007).

专家谈判者有何不同：Neil Rackham，《成功谈判者的行为》，载于《谈判：阅读、练习和案例》，Roy Lewicki、Bruce Barry 和 David Saunders 编辑（纽约：麦格劳希尔，1980/2007 年）。

having even one negotiator who brings : Femke S. Ten Velden, Bianca Beersma, and Carsten K. W. De Dreu, “It Takes One to Tango: The Effects of Dyads’ Epistemic Motivation Composition in Negotiations,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (2010): 1454–66.

甚至有一名谈判者能够带来成果：Femke S. Ten Velden、Bianca Beersma 和 Carsten K. W. De Dreu，“一个人去探戈：二元组认识动机组合对谈判的影响”，人格与社会心理学公报 36（2010 年）：1454–66。

We can demonstrate openness : Maria Popova, “How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently,” BrainPickings, March 28, 2014, www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism .

我们可以表现出开放的态度：玛丽亚·波波娃（Maria Popova），《如何善意地批评：哲学家丹尼尔·丹尼特论明智辩论的四个步骤》，BrainPickings，2014 年 3 月 28 日，www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism。

When we concede that someone else : Fabrizio Butera, Nicolas Sommet, and Céline Darnon, “Sociocognitive Conflict Regulation: How to Make Sense of Diverging Ideas,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 28 (2019): 145–51.

当我们承认别人时：Fabrizio Butera、Nicolas Sommet 和 Céline Darnon，“社会认知冲突调节：如何理解不同的想法”，《心理科学当前方向》28（2019）：145–51。

Her official name is Project Debater : IBM Research Editorial Staff, “Think 2019 Kicks Off with Live Debate between Man and Machine,” IBM Research Blog , February 12, 2019, www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/02/ai-debate-recap-think-2019 ; Paul Teich, “IBM Project Debater Speaks to the Future of AI,” The Next Platform , March 27, 2019, www.nextplatform.com/2019/03/27/ibm-project-debater-speaks-to-the-future-of-ai ; Dieter Bohn, “What It’s Like to Watch an IBM AI Successfully Debate Humans,” The Verge , June 18, 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17477686/ibm-project-debater-ai .

她的正式名称是 Project Debater：IBM 研究编辑部，“Think 2019 以人与机器之间的现场辩论拉开帷幕”，IBM 研究博客，2019 年 2 月 12 日，www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/02/ai-debate-recap-think-2019；Paul Teich，“IBM Project Debater 畅谈 AI 的未来”，The Next Platform，2019 年 3 月 27 日，www.nextplatform.com/2019/03/27/ibm-project-debater-speaks-to-the-future-of-ai；Dieter Bohn，“观看 IBM AI 成功与人类辩论是什么感觉”，The Verge，2018 年 6 月 18 日，www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17477686/ibm-project-debater-ai。

the steel man : Conor Friedersdorf, “The Highest Form of Disagreement,” The Atlantic , June 26, 2017, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597 .

钢铁侠：康纳·弗里德斯多夫，《最高形式的分歧》，《大西洋月刊》，2017 年 6 月 26 日，www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597。

people tend to see quantity : Kate A. Ranganath, Barbara A. Spellman, and Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, “Cognitive ‘Category-Based Induction’ Research and Social ‘Persuasion’ Research Are Each about What Makes Arguments Believable: A Tale of Two Literatures,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 (2010): 115–22.

人们倾向于看数量：Kate A. Ranganath、Barbara A. Spellman 和 Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba，“认知‘基于类别的归纳’研究和社会‘说服’研究都是关于什么使得论点可信：两种文献的故事”，心理科学观点 5（2010 年）：115-22。

the quality of reasons matters : Richard E. Petty and Duane T. Wegener, “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies,” in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology , ed. Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (New York: Guilford, 1999).

理由的质量至关重要：Richard E. Petty 和 Duane T. Wegener，《精细加工可能性模型：现状与争议》，载于 Shelly Chaiken 和 Yaacov Trope 编《社会心理学中的双重过程理论》（纽约：吉尔福德，1999 年）。

piling on justifications : John Biondo and A. P. MacDonald Jr., “Internal-External Locus of Control and Response to Influence Attempts,” Journal of Personality 39 (1971): 407–19.

不断提出理由：John Biondo 和 A. P. MacDonald Jr.，“内外控制点和对影响尝试的反应”，人格杂志 39（1971）：407-19。

convince thousands of resistant alumni : Daniel C. Feiler, Leigh P. Tost, and Adam M. Grant, “Mixed Reasons, Missed Givings: The Costs of Blending Egoistic and Altruistic Reasons in Donation Requests,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012): 1322–28.

说服成千上万的抵抗校友：Daniel C. Feiler、Leigh P. Tost 和 Adam M. Grant，“混合原因，错过捐赠：在捐赠请求中混合利己主义和利他主义原因的代价”，《实验社会心理学杂志》48（2012 年）：1322–28。

are you planning to attend? : Rachel (Penny) Breuhaus, “Get in the Game: Comparing the Effects of Self-Persuasion and Direct Influence in Motivating Attendance at UNC Men’s Basketball Games” (honors thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009).

你打算参加吗？：Rachel (Penny) Breuhaus，“参与比赛：比较自我说服和直接影响在激励参加北卡罗来纳大学男子篮球比赛方面的效果”（荣誉论文，北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校，2009 年）。

the person most likely to persuade you : Elliot Aronson, “The Power of Self-Persuasion,” American Psychologist 54 (1999): 875–84.

最有可能说服你的人：艾略特·阿伦森，《自我说服的力量》，《美国心理学家》54（1999）：875-84。

paying them more : David G. Allen, Phillip C. Bryant, and James M. Vardaman, “Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconceptions with Evidence-Based Strategies,” Academy of Management Perspectives 24 (2017): 48–64.

向他们支付更多报酬：David G. Allen、Phillip C. Bryant 和 James M. Vardaman，“留住人才：用基于证据的策略取代误解”，《管理学院观点》第 24 卷（2017 年）：第 48-64 页。

hierarchy of disagreement : Paul Graham, “How to Disagree,” PaulGraham.com, March 2008, www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html .

分歧的层次：保罗·格雷厄姆，《如何表示分歧》，PaulGraham.com，2008 年 3 月，www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html。

Beethoven and Mozart : Aaron Kozbelt, “Longitudinal Hit Ratios of Classical Composers: Reconciling ‘Darwinian’ and Expertise Acquisition Perspectives on Lifespan Creativity,” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2 (2008): 221–35; Adam Grant, “The Surprising Habits of Original Thinkers,” TED Talk, February 2016, www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_of_original_thinkers .

贝多芬和莫扎特：Aaron Kozbelt，“古典作曲家的纵向命中率：调和‘达尔文主义’与专业知识习得视角对终身创造力的影响”，《美学、创造力与艺术心理学》第 2 卷（2008 年）：221–35 页；Adam Grant，“原创思想家的惊人习惯”，TED 演讲，2016 年 2 月，www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_of_original_thinkers。

If we hold an : See Michael Natkin, “Strong Opinions Loosely Held Might Be the Worst Idea in Tech,” The Glowforge Blog , May 1, 2019, blog.glowforge.com/strong-opinions-loosely-held-might-be-the-worst-idea-in-tech .

如果我们持有：请参阅 Michael Natkin，“不加节制的强烈观点可能是科技界最糟糕的想法”，The Glowforge Blog，2019 年 5 月 1 日，blog.glowforge.com/strong-opinions-loosely-held-might-be-the-worst-idea-in-tech。

in courtrooms, expert witnesses : Robert J. Cramer, Stanley L. Brodsky, and Jamie DeCoster, “Expert Witness Confidence and Juror Personality: Their Impact on Credibility and Persuasion in the Courtroom,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 37 (2009) 63–74; Harvey London, Dennis McSeveney, and Richard Tropper, “Confidence, Overconfidence and Persuasion,” Human Relations 24 (1971): 359–69.

在法庭上，专家证人：Robert J. Cramer、Stanley L. Brodsky 和 Jamie DeCoster，“专家证人的信心和陪审员的个性：他们对法庭上的可信度和说服力的影响”，《美国精神病学和法律学院杂志》37（2009 年）63-74；Harvey London、Dennis McSeveney 和 Richard Tropper，“信心、过度自信和说服力”，《人际关系》24（1971 年）：359-69。

woman named Michele Hansen : Personal interview with Michele Hansen, February 23, 2018; “The Problem with All-Stars,” WorkLife with Adam Grant , March 14, 2018.

名叫 Michele Hansen 的女性：2018 年 2 月 23 日对 Michele Hansen 的个人采访；2018 年 3 月 14 日与 Adam Grant 一起在 WorkLife 上发表的“全明星的问题”。

two-sided messages were more convincing : Mike Allen, “Meta-analysis Comparing the Persuasiveness of One-Sided and Two-Sided Messages,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 55 (1991): 390–404.

双面信息更有说服力：Mike Allen，“元分析比较单面信息和双面信息的说服力”，西方言语传播杂志 55（1991）：390-404。

“I work too hard, I care too much” : The Office , season 3, episode 23, “Beach Games,” May 10, 2007, NBC.

“我工作太努力，我关心太多”：《办公室》，第三季，第 23 集，“海滩游戏”，2007 年 5 月 10 日，NBC。

“My name is George” : Seinfeld , season 5, episode 22, “The Opposite,” May 19, 1994, NBC.

“我的名字叫乔治”：宋飞传，第 5 季，第 22 集，“相反”，1994 年 5 月 19 日，NBC。

candidates who acknowledge legitimate weaknesses : Ovul Sezer, Francesca Gino, and Michael I. Norton, “Humblebragging: A Distinct—and Ineffective—Self-Presentation Strategy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114 (2018): 52–74.

承认合理弱点的候选人：Ovul Sezer、Francesca Gino 和 Michael I. Norton，“谦虚自夸：一种独特且无效的自我展示策略”，人格与社会心理学杂志 114（2018）：52-74。

Chapter 6. Bad Blood on the Diamond

第六章钻石上的仇恨

“I hated the Yankees with all my heart, even to the point” : Doris Kearns Goodwin, MLB Pro Blog , doriskearnsgoodwin.mlblogs.com.

“我从心底里讨厌洋基队，甚至到了这种地步”：多丽丝·卡恩斯·古德温 (Doris Kearns Goodwin)，MLB Pro Blog，doriskearnsgoodwin.mlblogs.com。

Daryl Davis arrived : Personal communications with Daryl Davis, April 10, 2020; Daryl Davis, “What Do You Do When Someone Just Doesn’t Like You?,” TEDxCharlottesville, November 2017, www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_what_do_you_do_when_someone_just_doesn_t_like_you ; Dwane Brown, “How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members to Give Up Their Robes,” NPR, August 20, 2017, www.npr.org/transcripts/544861933 ; Craig Phillips, “Reformed Racists: Is There Life after Hate for Former White Supremacists?,” PBS, February 9, 2017, www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/reformed-racists-white-supremacists-life-after-hate ; The Joe Rogan Experience , #1419, January 30, 2020; Jeffrey Fleishman, “A Black Man’s Quixotic Quest to Quell the Racism of the KKK, One Robe at a Time,” Los Angeles Times , December 8, 2016, www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-ca-film-accidental-courtesy-20161205-story.html .

达里尔·戴维斯 (Daryl Davis) 抵达：与达里尔·戴维斯 (Daryl Davis) 的个人通信，2020 年 4 月 10 日；达里尔·戴维斯 (Daryl Davis)，“当有人不喜欢你时，你会怎么做？”，TEDxCharlottesville，2017 年 11 月，www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_what_do_you_do_when_someone_just_doesn_t_like_you；德韦恩·布朗 (Dwane Brown)，“一个人如何说服 200 名三 K 党成员放弃长袍，”NPR，2017 年 8 月 20 日，www.npr.org/transcripts/544861933；克雷格·菲利普斯 (Craig Phillips)，“改过自新的种族主义者：前白人至上主义者在仇恨之后还有生活吗？”，PBS，2017 年 2 月 9 日，www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/reformed-racists-white-supremacists-life-after-hate；《乔·罗根体验》第 1419 期，2020 年 1 月 30 日；Jeffrey Fleishman，“一个黑人不切实际地要求通过一次一件长袍来平息 KKK 的种族主义”，《洛杉矶时报》，2016 年 12 月 8 日，www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-ca-film-accidental-courtesy-20161205-story.html。

most popular T-shirts : Amos Barshad, “Yankees Suck! Yankees Suck!” Grantland , September 1, 2015, http://grantland.com/features/yankees-suck-t-shirts-boston-red-sox .

最受欢迎的 T 恤：Amos Barshad，“洋基队烂透了！洋基队烂透了！” Grantland，2015 年 9 月 1 日，http://grantland.com/features/yankees-suck-t-shirts-boston-red-sox。

When asked how much money : Steven A. Lehr, Meghan L. Ferreira, and Mahzarin R. Banaji, “When Outgroup Negativity Trumps Ingroup Positivity: Fans of the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees Place Greater Value on Rival Losses Than Own-Team Gains,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22 (2017): 26–42.

当被问及多少钱时：Steven A. Lehr、Meghan L. Ferreira 和 Mahzarin R. Banaji，“当外群体消极情绪战胜内群体积极情绪时：波士顿红袜队和纽约洋基队的球迷更看重对手的损失而不是自己球队的收益”，《群体过程与群体间关系》22（2017）：26-42。

when Red Sox fans see the Yankees fail : Mina Cikara and Susan T. Fiske, “Their Pain, Our Pleasure: Stereotype Content and Schadenfreude,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1299 (2013): 52–59.

当红袜队球迷看到洋基队失败时：Mina Cikara 和 Susan T. Fiske，“他们的痛苦，我们的快乐：刻板印象内容和幸灾乐祸”，纽约科学院年鉴 1299（2013 年）：52-59。

well beyond Boston : Eduardo Gonzalez, “Most Hated Baseball Team on Twitter?,” Los Angeles Times , July 1, 2019, www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-most-hated-mlb-teams-twitter-yankees-cubs-dodgers-20190701-story.html .

远远超出波士顿：Eduardo Gonzalez，《推特上最讨厌的棒球队？》，《洛杉矶时报》，2019 年 7 月 1 日，www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-most-hated-mlb-teams-twitter-yankees-cubs-dodgers-20190701-story.html。

families self-segregated : Hannah Schwär, “Puma and Adidas’ Rivalry Has Divided a Small German Town for 70 Years—Here’s What It Looks Like Now,” Business Insider Deutschland , October 1, 2018; Ellen Emmerentze Jervell, “Where Puma and Adidas Were Like Hatfields and McCoys,” Wall Street Journal , December 30, 2014, www.wsj.com/articles/where-adidas-and-pumas-were-like-hatfields-and-mccoys-1419894858 ; Allan Hall, “Adidas and Puma Bury the Hatchet after 60 Years of Brothers’ Feud after Football Match,” Daily Telegraph , September 22, 2009, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/6216728/Adidas-and-Puma-bury-the-hatchet-after-60-years-of-brothers-feud-after-football-match.html .

家庭自我隔离：Hannah Schwär，“彪马和阿迪达斯的竞争让德国一个小镇分裂了 70 年——现在的情况是这样的”，Business Insider Deutschland，2018 年 10 月 1 日；Ellen Emmerentze Jervell，“彪马和阿迪达斯就像哈特菲尔德和麦考伊”，华尔街日报，2014 年 12 月 30 日，www.wsj.com/articles/where-adidas-and-pumas-were-like-hatfields-and-mccoys-1419894858；艾伦·霍尔，《阿迪达斯与彪马在足球赛后结束了长达 60 年的兄弟之争，最终和解》，《每日电讯报》，2009 年 9 月 22 日，www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/6216728/Adidas-and-Puma-bury-the-hatchet-after-60-years-of-brothers-feud-after-football-match.html。

we disidentify with our adversaries : Kimberly D. Elsbach and C. B. Bhattacharya, “Defining Who You Are by What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association,” Organization Science 12 (2001): 393–413.

我们与对手不再认同：Kimberly D. Elsbach 和 C. B. Bhattacharya，“通过你不是什么来定义你是谁：组织认同与全国步枪协会”，组织科学 12（2001）：393–413。

if they were willing to lie : Gavin J. Kilduff et al., “Whatever It Takes to Win: Rivalry Increases Unethical Behavior,” Academy of Management Journal 59 (2016): 1508–34.

如果他们愿意撒谎：Gavin J. Kilduff 等人，“不惜一切代价取胜：竞争加剧不道德行为”，《管理学院期刊》59（2016 年）：1508-34。

even when the boundaries between them are trivial : Michael Diehl, “The Minimal Group Paradigm: Theoretical Explanations and Empirical Findings,” European Review of Social Psychology 1 (1990): 263–92.

即使它们之间的界限很细微：Michael Diehl，“最小群体范式：理论解释和实证发现”，《欧洲社会心理学评论》1（1990）：263-92。

a seemingly innocuous question: is a hot dog a sandwich? : Dave Hauser (@DavidJHauser), December 5, 2019, twitter.com/DavidJHauser/status/1202610237934592000 .

一个看似无害的问题：热狗是三明治吗？：Dave Hauser（@DavidJHauser），2019 年 12 月 5 日，twitter.com/DavidJHauser/status/1202610237934592000。

Identifying with a group : Philip Furley, “What Modern Sports Competitions Can Tell Us about Human Nature,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 14 (2019): 138–55.

认同群体：Philip Furley，“现代体育比赛能告诉我们关于人性的什么”，《心理科学视角》14（2019）：138-55。

after their team won a football game : Robert B. Cialdini et al., “Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (1976): 366–75.

在他们的球队赢得一场足球比赛之后：Robert B. Cialdini 等人，“沐浴在荣耀的光芒中：三项（足球）实地研究”，人格与社会心理学杂志 34（1976 年）：366-75。

Rivalries are most likely to develop : Gavin J. Kilduff, Hillary Anger Elfenbein, and Barry M. Staw, “The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis of Competition,” Academy of Management Journal 53 (2010): 943–69.

最有可能发展成竞争关系：Gavin J. Kilduff、Hillary Anger Elfenbein 和 Barry M. Staw，“竞争心理学：竞争的关系依赖分析”，《管理学院期刊》53（2010 年）：943-69。

The two teams also have more fans : Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, “They Hook You When You’re Young,” New York Times , April 19, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/they-hook-you-when-youre-young.html ; J. Clement, “Major League Baseball Teams with the Most Facebook Fans as of June 2020,” Statista, June 16, 2020, www.statista.com/statistics/235719/facebook-fans-of-major-league-baseball-teams .

这两支球队也拥有更多的球迷：Seth Stephens-Davidowitz，“They Hook You When You’re Young”，《纽约时报》，2014 年 4 月 19 日，www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/they-hook-you-when-youre-young.html；J. Clement，“截至 2020 年 6 月拥有最多 Facebook 粉丝的美国职业棒球大联盟球队”，Statista，2020 年 6 月 16 日，www.statista.com/statistics/235719/facebook-fans-of-major-league-baseball-teams。

subject of extensive debate : John K. Ashton, Robert Simon Hudson, and Bill Gerrard, “Do National Soccer Results Really Impact on the Stock Market?,” Applied Economics 43 (2011): 3709–17; Guy Kaplanski and Haim Levy, “Exploitable Predictable Irrationality: The FIFA World Cup Effect on the U.S. Stock Market,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 45 (2010): 535–53; Jerome Geyer-Klingeberg et al., “Do Stock Markets React to Soccer Games? A Meta-regression Analysis,” Applied Economics 50 (2018): 2171–89.

广泛争论的主题：John K. Ashton、Robert Simon Hudson 和 Bill Gerrard，“国家足球比赛结果真的会影响股市吗？”，《应用经济学》43（2011）：3709-17；Guy Kaplanski 和 Haim Levy，“可利用的可预测非理性：FIFA 世界杯对美国股市的影响，”《金融与数量分析杂志》45（2010）：535-53；Jerome Geyer-Klingeberg 等人，“股市会对足球比赛做出反应吗？元回归分析，”《应用经济学》50（2018）：2171-89。

when their favorite soccer team loses : Panagiotis Gkorezis et al., “Linking Football Team Performance to Fans’ Work Engagement and Job Performance: Test of a Spillover Model,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 89 (2016): 791–812.

当他们最喜欢的足球队输球时：Panagiotis Gkorezis 等人，“将足球队表现与球迷的工作投入和工作表现联系起来：溢出模型检验”，职业与组织心理学杂志 89（2016 年）：791-812。

pairs of reality goggles : George A. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs , vol. 1, A Theory of Personality (New York: Norton, 1955).

现实护目镜：乔治·A·凯利，《个人建构心理学》，第 1 卷，《人格理论》（纽约：诺顿，1955 年）。

phenomenon is called group polarization : Daniel J. Isenberg, “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986): 1141–51.

这种现象被称为群体极化：Daniel J. Isenberg，“群体极化：批判性评论与元分析”，人格与社会心理学杂志50（1986）：1141-51。

Juries with authoritarian beliefs : Robert M. Bray and Audrey M. Noble, “Authoritarianism and Decision in Mock Juries: Evidence of Jury Bias and Group Polarization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (1978): 1424–30.

具有权威主义信念的陪审团：罗伯特·M·布雷和奥黛丽·M·诺布尔，“模拟陪审团中的权威主义和决策：陪审团偏见和群体极化的证据”，人格与社会心理学杂志36（1978）：1424-30。

Corporate boards are more likely : Cass R. Sunstein and Reid Hastie, Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2014).

公司董事会更有可能：Cass R. Sunstein 和 Reid Hastie，《Wiser：超越群体思维，让群体更聪明》（波士顿：哈佛商业评论出版社，2014 年）。

Polarization is reinforced : Liran Goldman and Michael A. Hogg, “Going to Extremes for One’s Group: The Role of Prototypicality and Group Acceptance,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 46 (2016): 544–53; Michael A. Hogg, John C. Turner, and Barbara Davidson, “Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 11 (1990): 77–100.

两极分化得到强化：Liran Goldman 和 Michael A. Hogg，“为群体走向极端：原型性和群体接纳的作用”，《应用社会心理学杂志》46（2016）：544–553；Michael A. Hogg、John C. Turner 和 Barbara Davidson，“两极化的规范和社会参考框架：对群体两极化的自我分类理论的检验”，《基础与应用社会心理学》11（1990）：77–100。

when teams try to downplay : Johannes Berendt and Sebastian Uhrich, “Rivalry and Fan Aggression: Why Acknowledging Conflict Reduces Tension between Rival Fans and Downplaying Makes Things Worse,” European Sport Management Quarterly 18 (2018): 517–40.

当球队试图淡化时：Johannes Berendt 和 Sebastian Uhrich，“竞争与球迷攻击性：为什么承认冲突可以减轻对手球迷之间的紧张关系，而淡化只会让事情变得更糟”，《欧洲体育管理季刊》第 18 卷（2018 年）：517-40。

Upon returning from space : Peter Suedfeld, Katya Legkaia, and Jelena Brcic, “Changes in the Hierarchy of Value References Associated with Flying in Space,” Journal of Personality 78 (2010): 1411–36.

从太空返回后：Peter Suedfeld、Katya Legkaia 和 Jelena Brcic，“与太空飞行相关的价值参考层次的变化”，人格杂志 78（2010 年）：1411-36。

“From out there on the moon” : “Edgar Mitchell’s Strange Voyage,” People , April 8, 1974, people.com/archive/edgar-mitchells-strange-voyage-vol-1-no-6 .

“从月球上出发”：“埃德加·米切尔的奇怪航行”，《人物》，1974 年 4 月 8 日，people.com/archive/edgar-mitchells-strange-voyage-vol-1-no-6。

“ On Earth, astronauts look to the stars” : Personal interview with Jeff Ashby, January 12, 2018; “How to Trust People You Don’t Like,” WorkLife with Adam Grant , March 28, 2018.

“在地球上，宇航员仰望星空”：杰夫·阿什比的个人访谈，2018 年 1 月 12 日；“如何信任你不喜欢的人”，亚当·格兰特的《职场生活》，2018 年 3 月 28 日。

Manchester United soccer fans : Mark Levine et al., “Identity and Emergency Intervention: How Social Group Membership and Inclusiveness of Group Boundaries Shape Helping Behavior,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005): 443–53.

曼联球迷：Mark Levine 等人，“身份和紧急干预：社会群体成员身份和群体边界的包容性如何影响助人行为”，人格与社会心理学公报 31（2005 年）：443-53。

Kelman set out to challenge : Herbert C. Kelman, “Group Processes in the Resolution of International Conflicts: Experiences from the Israeli-Palestinian Case,” American Psychologist 52 (1997): 212–20.

凯尔曼开始挑战：赫伯特·C·凯尔曼，“解决国际冲突的群体过程：从以色列-巴勒斯坦案例中汲取的经验”，美国心理学家 52（1997）：212-20。

we asked UNC students to help : Alison R. Fragale, Karren Knowlton, and Adam M. Grant, “Feeling for Your Foes: Empathy Can Reverse the In-Group Helping Preference” (working paper, 2020).

我们请求北卡罗来纳大学的学生提供帮助：Alison R. Fragale、Karren Knowlton 和 Adam M. Grant，《同情你的敌人：同理心可以扭转群体内帮助偏好》（工作论文，2020 年）。

establishes her as different : Myron Rothbart and Oliver P. John, “Social Categorization and Behavioral Episodes: A Cognitive Analysis of the Effects of Intergroup Contact,” Journal of Social Issues 41 (1985): 81–104.

确立了她的与众不同之处：Myron Rothbart 和 Oliver P. John，“社会分类和行为事件：群体间接触影响的认知分析”，社会问题杂志 41（1985 年）：81-104。

“Without sports, this wouldn’t be disgusting” : ESPN College Football, www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/18106107 .

“如果没有体育运动，这就不会令人厌恶”：ESPN 大学橄榄球，www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/18106107。

“You’re actually rooting for the clothes” : Seinfeld , season 6, episode 12, “The Label Maker,” January 19, 1995, NBC.

“你实际上是在为衣服加油”：《宋飞传》，第六季，第十二集，“标签制造者”，1995 年 1 月 19 日，NBC。

A fun but arbitrary ritual : Tim Kundro and Adam M. Grant, “Bad Blood on the Diamond: Highlighting the Arbitrariness of Acrimony Can Reduce Animosity toward Rivals” (working paper, 2020).

有趣但任意的仪式：Tim Kundro 和 Adam M. Grant，《钻石上的恶意：强调敌意的任意性可以减少对竞争对手的敌意》（工作论文，2020 年）。

counterfactual thinking involves : Kai Epstude and Neal J. Roese, “The Functional Theory of Counterfactual Thinking,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 12 (2008): 168–92.

反事实思维包括：Kai Epstude 和 Neal J. Roese，“反事实思维的功能理论”，人格与社会心理学评论 12（2008）：168-92。

many stereotypes match up : Lee Jussim et al., “The Unbearable Accuracy of Stereotypes,” in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination , ed. Todd D. Nelson (New York: Psychology Press, 2009).

许多刻板印象都是相符的：Lee Jussim 等人，《刻板印象的难以忍受的准确性》，载于《偏见、刻板印象和歧视手册》，Todd D. Nelson 编（纽约：心理学出版社，2009 年）。

stereotypes become consistently and increasingly inaccurate : Lee Jussim, Jarret T. Crawford, and Rachel S. Rubinstein, “Stereotype (In)accuracy in Perceptions of Groups and Individuals,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 24 (2015): 490–97.

刻板印象变得越来越不准确：Lee Jussim、Jarret T. Crawford 和 Rachel S. Rubinstein，“群体和个人认知中的刻板印象（不）准确性”，心理科学新方向 24（2015）：490-97。

“if you’re a Virgo in China” : Jackson G. Lu et al., “Disentangling Stereotypes from Social Reality: Astrological Stereotypes and Discrimination in China,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2020), psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-19028-001 .

“如果你是处女座在中国”：Jackson G. Lu 等人，“从社会现实中解开刻板印象：中国的占星刻板印象和歧视”，《人格与社会心理学杂志》（2020 年），psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-19028-001。

our beliefs are cultural truisms : Gregory R. Maio and James M. Olson, “Values as Truisms: Evidence and Implications,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (1998): 294–311.

我们的信念是文化真理：Gregory R.Maio 和 James M.Olson，“价值观作为真理：证据和含义”，人格与社会心理学杂志 74（1998）：294-311。

there are more similarities : Paul H. P. Hanel, Gregory R. Maio, and Antony S. R. Manstead, “A New Way to Look at the Data: Similarities between Groups of People Are Large and Important,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 116 (2019): 541–62.

还有更多相似之处：Paul H. P. Hanel、Gregory R. Maio 和 Antony S. R. Manstead，“看待数据的新方式：人群之间的相似性很大而且很重要”，人格与社会心理学杂志 116（2019 年）：541–62。

interacting with members of another group : Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (2006): 751–83.

与另一个群体的成员互动：Thomas F. Pettigrew 和 Linda R. Tropp，“群体间接触理论的元分析测试”，人格与社会心理学杂志 90（2006）：751-83。

more likely to privilege their own perspectives : Jennifer R. Overbeck and Vitaliya Droutman, “One for All: Social Power Increases Self-Anchoring of Traits, Attitudes, and Emotions,” Psychological Science 24 (2013): 1466–76.

更有可能优先考虑自己的观点：Jennifer R. Overbeck 和 Vitaliya Droutman，“我为人人：社会权力增强特质、态度和情绪的自我锚定”，心理科学 24（2013）：1466–76。

their perspectives are more likely to go unquestioned : Leigh Plunkett Tost, Francesca Gino, and Richard P. Larrick, “When Power Makes Others Speechless,” Academy of Management Journal 56 (2013): 1465–86.

他们的观点更有可能不受质疑：Leigh Plunkett Tost、Francesca Gino 和 Richard P. Larrick，“当权力让别人无话可说时”，《管理学院期刊》56（2013 年）：1465-86。

Chapter 7. Vaccine Whisperers and Mild-Mannered Interrogators

第七章疫苗传言者和温文尔雅的审讯者

Marie-Hélène Étienne-Rousseau went into labor : See Eric Boodman, “The Vaccine Whisperers: Counselors Gently Engage New Parents Before Their Doubts Harden into Certainty,” STAT, August 5, 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/08/05/the-vaccine-whisperers-counselors-gently-engage-new-parents-before-their-doubts-harden-into-certainty .

Marie-Hélène Étienne-Rousseau 分娩：请参阅 Eric Boodman 的《疫苗耳语者：辅导员在新父母的疑虑变为确定之前与他们温和地沟通》，STAT，2019 年 8 月 5 日，www.statnews.com/2019/08/05/the-vaccine-whisperers-counselors-gently-engage-new-parents-before-their-doubts-harden-into-certainty。

its mortality rate : Nick Paumgarten, “The Message of Measles,” New Yorker , August 26, 2019, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-message-of-measles ; Leslie Roberts, “Why Measles Deaths Are Surging—and Coronavirus Could Make It Worse,” Nature , April 7, 2020, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01011-6 .

其死亡率：Nick Paumgarten，《麻疹的信息》，《纽约客》，2019 年 8 月 26 日，www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/the-message-of-measles；Leslie Roberts，《麻疹死亡人数为何激增——冠状病毒可能会使情况变得更糟》，《自然》，2020 年 4 月 7 日，www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01011-6。

tried to prosecute the problem : Helen Branswell, “New York County, Declaring Emergency over Measles, Seeks to Ban Unvaccinated from Public Places,” STAT, March 26, 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/03/26/rockland-county-ny-declares-emergency-over-measles ; Tyler Pager, “‘Monkey, Rat and Pig DNA’: How Misinformation Is Driving the Measles Outbreak among Ultra-Orthodox Jews,” New York Times , April 9, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/nyregion/jews-measles-vaccination.html .

试图起诉该问题：Helen Branswell，“纽约县因麻疹宣布进入紧急状态，试图禁止未接种疫苗的人进入公共场所”，STAT，2019 年 3 月 26 日，www.statnews.com/2019/03/26/rockland-county-ny-declares-emergency-over-measles；Tyler Pager，“‘猴子、老鼠和猪的 DNA’：错误信息如何推动极端正统犹太人中麻疹疫情爆发”，纽约时报，2019 年 4 月 9 日，www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/nyregion/jews-measles-vaccination.html。

The results were often disappointing : Matthew J. Hornsey, Emily A. Harris, and Kelly S. Fielding, “The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: A 24-Nation Investigation,” Health Psychology 37 (2018): 307–15.

结果往往令人失望：Matthew J. Hornsey、Emily A. Harris 和 Kelly S. Fielding，“反疫苗接种态度的心理根源：一项 24 国调查”，《健康心理学》37（2018 年）：307–15。

introducing people to the research : Cornelia Betsch and Katharina Sachse, “Debunking Vaccination Myths: Strong Risk Negations Can Increase Perceived Vaccination Risks,” Health Psychology 32 (2013): 146–55.

向人们介绍这项研究：Cornelia Betsch 和 Katharina Sachse，“揭穿疫苗接种的迷思：强烈的风险否定会增加感知疫苗接种风险”，健康心理学 32（2013）：146-55。

their interest in vaccination didn’t rise at all : Brendan Nyhan et al., “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics 133 (2014): e835–42.

他们对疫苗接种的兴趣一点也没有增加：Brendan Nyhan 等人，“疫苗推广中的有效信息：一项随机试验”，儿科学 133（2014）：e835–42。

what doesn’t sway us : Zakary L. Tormala and Richard E. Petty, “What Doesn’t Kill Me Makes Me Stronger: The Effects of Resisting Persuasion on Attitude Certainty,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002): 1298–313.

那些无法动摇我们的东西：Zakary L. Tormala 和 Richard E. Petty，“那些杀不死我的，让我更强大：抵制说服对态度确定性的影响”，人格与社会心理学杂志 83（2002 年）：1298–313。

the act of resistance fortifies : William J. McGuire, “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1 (1964): 191–229.

抵抗行为会增强力量：William J. McGuire，“诱导抵抗说服：一些当代方法”，实验社会心理学进展 1（1964）：191-229。

Refuting a point of view : John A. Banas and Stephen A. Rains, “A Meta-analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory,” Communication Monographs 77 (2010): 281–311.

反驳一种观点：John A. Banas 和 Stephen A. Rains，“接种理论研究的元分析”，Communication Monographs 77（2010）：281-311。

clinical psychologist named Bill Miller : Personal communications with Bill Miller, September 3 and 6, 2019 .

临床心理学家比尔·米勒：2019 年 9 月 3 日和 6 日与比尔·米勒的个人交流。

core principles of a practice called motivational interviewing : William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick, Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change, 3rd ed. (New York: Guilford, 2012).

动机访谈实践的核心原则：William R. Miller 和 Stephen Rollnick，《动机访谈：帮助人们改变》，第 3 版。（纽约：吉尔福德，2012 年）。

a neonatologist and researcher named : Personal interview with Arnaud Gagneur, October 8, 2019.

一位名叫 Arnaud Gagneur 的新生儿科医生和研究员，2019 年 10 月 8 日进行个人访谈。

In Arnaud’s first study : Arnaud Gagneur et al., “A Postpartum Vaccination Promotion Intervention Using Motivational Interviewing Techniques Improves Short-Term Vaccine Coverage: PromoVac Study,” BMC Public Health 18 (2018): 811.

在 Arnaud 的第一项研究中：Arnaud Gagneur 等人，“使用动机访谈技术的产后疫苗接种促进干预可提高短期疫苗覆盖率：PromoVac 研究”，BMC Public Health 18（2018）：811。

In Arnaud’s next experiment : Thomas Lemaître et al., “Impact of a Vaccination Promotion Intervention Using Motivational Interview Techniques on Long-Term Vaccine Coverage: The PromoVac Strategy,” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 15 (2019): 732–39.

在 Arnaud 的下一个实验中：Thomas Lemaître 等人，“使用动机访谈技术的疫苗接种促进干预对长期疫苗覆盖率的影响：PromoVac 策略”，人类疫苗与免疫治疗学 15（2019）：732–39。

help people stop smoking : Carolyn J. Heckman, Brian L. Egleston, and Makary T. Hofmann, “Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Tobacco Control 19 (2010): 410–16.

帮助人们戒烟：Carolyn J. Heckman、Brian L. Egleston 和 Makary T. Hofmann，“动机访谈对戒烟的功效：系统评价和荟萃分析”，烟草控制 19（2010 年）：410-16。

abusing drugs and alcohol : Brad W. Lundahl et al., “A Meta-analysis of Motivational Interviewing: Twenty-Five Years of Empirical Studies,” Research on Social Work Practice 20 (2010): 137–60.

滥用药物和酒精：Brad W. Lundahl 等人，“动机访谈的元分析：二十五年的实证研究”，社会工作实践研究 20（2010）：137-60。

improve their diets and exercise habits : Brian L. Burke, Hal Arkowitz, and Marisa Menchola, “The Efficacy of Motivational Interviewing: A Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71 (2003): 843–61.

改善他们的饮食和锻炼习惯：Brian L. Burke、Hal Arkowitz 和 Marisa Menchola，“动机访谈的功效：对照临床试验的荟萃分析”，咨询和临床心理学杂志 71（2003 年）：843-61。

overcome eating disorders : Pam Macdonald et al., “The Use of Motivational Interviewing in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review,” Psychiatry Research 200 (2012): 1–11.

克服饮食失调：Pam Macdonald 等人，“动机访谈在饮食失调中的应用：系统评价”，精神病学研究 200（2012）：1-11。

and lose weight : Marni J. Armstrong et al., “Motivational Interviewing to Improve Weight Loss in Overweight Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,” Obesity Reviews 12 (2011): 709–23.

并减轻体重：Marni J. Armstrong 等人，“通过动机访谈改善超重患者的减肥效果：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析”，肥胖评论 12（2011 年）：709-23。

build grit in professional soccer players : Jonathan Rhodes et al., “Enhancing Grit through Functional Imagery Training in Professional Soccer,” Sport Psychologist 32 (2018): 220–25.

培养职业足球运动员的勇气：Jonathan Rhodes 等人，“通过职业足球中的功能性意象训练增强勇气”，运动心理学家 32（2018）：220-25。

teachers to nudge students : Neralie Cain, Michael Gradisar, and Lynette Moseley, “A Motivational School-Based Intervention for Adolescent Sleep Problems,” Sleep Medicine 12 (2011): 246–51.

教师督促学生：Neralie Cain、Michael Gradisar 和 Lynette Moseley，“针对青少年睡眠问题的激励性学校干预”，睡眠医学 12（2011）：246-51。

consultants to prepare teams : Conrado J. Grimolizzi-Jensen, “Organizational Change: Effect of Motivational Interviewing on Readiness to Change,” Journal of Change Management 18 (2018): 54–69.

顾问来准备团队：Conrado J. Grimolizzi-Jensen，“组织变革：动机访谈对变革准备的影响”，变革管理杂志 18（2018）：54-69。

public health workers : Angelica K. Thevos, Robert E. Quick, and Violet Yanduli, “Motivational Interviewing Enhances the Adoption of Water Disinfection Practices in Zambia,” Health Promotion International 15 (2000): 207–14.

公共卫生工作者：Angelica K. Thevos、Robert E. Quick 和 Violet Yanduli，“动机性访谈促进了赞比亚采用水消毒实践”，国际健康促进 15（2000 年）：207-14。

and environmental activists : Florian E. Klonek et al., “Using Motivational Interviewing to Reduce Threats in Conversations about Environmental Behavior,” Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015): 1015; Sofia Tagkaloglou and Tim Kasser, “Increasing Collaborative, Pro-Environmental Activism: The Roles of Motivational Interviewing, Self-Determined Motivation, and Self-Efficacy,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 58 (2018): 86–92.

以及环保活动家：Florian E. Klonek 等人，“通过动机性访谈减少有关环境行为的对话中的威胁”，《心理学前沿》6（2015 年）：1015；Sofia Tagkaloglou 和 Tim Kasser，“加强合作、支持环境的行动主义：动机性访谈、自我决定动机和自我效能的作用”，《环境心理学杂志》58（2018 年）：86-92。

opened the minds of prejudiced voters : Joshua L. Kalla and David E. Broockman, “Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments,” American Political Science Review 114 (2020): 410–25.

打开了有偏见的选民的思想：Joshua L. Kalla 和 David E. Broockman，“通过人际对话减少排斥态度：来自三个实地实验的证据”，美国政治科学评论 114（2020 年）：410-25。

help separated parents resolve disputes : Megan Morris, W. Kim Halford, and Jemima Petch, “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Family Mediation with and without Motivational Interviewing,” Journal of Family Psychology 32 (2018): 269–75.

帮助分居父母解决纠纷：Megan Morris、W. Kim Halford 和 Jemima Petch，“一项比较有无动机访谈的家庭调解的随机对照试验”，家庭心理学杂志 32（2018 年）：269-75。

a body of evidence this robust : Sune Rubak et al., “Motivational Interviewing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” British Journal of General Practice 55 (2005): 305–12.

大量证据如此有力：Sune Rubak 等人，“动机访谈：系统评价和荟萃分析”，英国全科医学杂志 55（2005）：305-12。

When people ignore advice : Anna Goldfarb, “How to Give People Advice They’ll Be Delighted to Take,” New York Times , October 21, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/smarter-living/how-to-give-better-advice.html .

当人们忽视建议时：安娜·戈德法布，《如何给人们乐于接受的建议》，《纽约时报》，2019 年 10 月 21 日，www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/smarter-living/how-to-give-better-advice.html。

sustain talk and change talk : Molly Magill et al., “A Meta-analysis of Motivational Interviewing Process: Technical, Relational, and Conditional Process Models of Change,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 86 (2018): 140–57; Timothy R. Apodaca et al., “Which Individual Therapist Behaviors Elicit Client Change Talk and Sustain Talk in Motivational Interviewing?,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 61 (2016): 60–65; Molly Magill et al., “The Technical Hypothesis of Motivational Interviewing: A Meta-analysis of MI’s Key Causal Model,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82 (2014): 973–83.

维持性谈话和改变性谈话：Molly Magill 等人，“动机性访谈过程的荟萃分析：改变的技术、关系和条件过程模型”，《咨询与临床心理学杂志》86（2018）：140-57；Timothy R. Apodaca 等人，“哪些个体治疗师行为会在动机性访谈中引发来访者的改变性谈话和维持性谈话？”《药物滥用治疗杂志》61（2016）：60-65；Molly Magill 等人，“动机性访谈的技术假设：对 MI 关键因果模型的荟萃分析”，《咨询与临床心理学杂志》82（2014）：973-83。

“Change talk is a golden thread” : Theresa Moyers, “Change Talk,” Talking to Change with Glenn Hinds & Sebastian Kaplan .

“改变谈话是一条金线”：Theresa Moyers，“改变谈话”，与 Glenn Hinds 和 Sebastian Kaplan 谈论改变。

when people detect an attempt at influence : Marian Friestad and Peter Wright, “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1994): 1–31.

当人们察觉到有影响力的企图时：Marian Friestad 和 Peter Wright，“说服知识模型：人们如何应对说服企图”，消费者研究杂志 21（1994）：1-31。

Betty Bigombe had already hiked : Personal interviews with Betty Bigombe, March 19 and May 8, 2020; see also “Betty Bigombe: The Woman Who Befriended a Warlord,” BBC, August 8, 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49269136 .

贝蒂·比贡布已经徒步旅行：2020 年 3 月 19 日和 5 月 8 日对贝蒂·比贡布的个人采访；另请参阅“贝蒂·比贡布：与军阀成为朋友的女人”，BBC，2019 年 8 月 8 日，www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49269136。

Joseph Kony was the leader : David Smith, “Surrender of Senior Aide to Joseph Kony Is Major Blow to Lord’s Resistance Army,” Guardian , January 7, 2015, www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/07/surrender-aide-joseph-kony-blow-lords-resistance-army .

约瑟夫·科尼是领导人：大卫·史密斯，《约瑟夫·科尼高级助手投降是对圣主抵抗军的重大打击》，《卫报》，2015 年 1 月 7 日，www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jan/07/surrender-aide-joseph-kony-blow-lords-resistance-army。

“truly curious questions” : Kate Murphy, “Talk Less. Listen More. Here’s How,” New York Times , January 9, 2010, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/listening-tips.html .

“真正令人好奇的问题”：凯特·墨菲，《少说话，多倾听，方法如下》，《纽约时报》，2010 年 1 月 9 日，www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opinion/listening-tips.html。

an empathetic, nonjudgmental, attentive listener : Guy Itzchakov et al., “The Listener Sets the Tone: High-Quality Listening Increases Attitude Clarity and Behavior-Intention Consequences,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44 (2018): 762–78; Guy Itzchakov, Avraham N. Kluger, and Dotan R. Castro, “I Am Aware of My Inconsistencies but Can Tolerate Them: The Effect of High Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Ambivalence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (2017): 105–20.

富有同理心、不带评判、专注的倾听者：Guy Itzchakov 等人，“倾听者定下基调：高质量的倾听可提高态度清晰度和行为意图后果”，《人格与社会心理学公报》44（2018 年）：762–78；Guy Itzchakov、Avraham N. Kluger 和 Dotan R. Castro，“我意识到自己的矛盾之处，但可以容忍它们：高质量倾听对说话者态度矛盾的影响”，《人格与社会心理学公报》43（2017 年）：105–20。

people’s attitudes became more complex : Guy Itzchakov and Avraham N. Kluger, “Can Holding a Stick Improve Listening at Work? The Effect of Listening Circles on Employees’ Emotions and Cognitions,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 26 (2017): 663–76.

人们的态度变得更加复杂：Guy Itzchakov 和 Avraham N. Kluger，“拿着棍子能提高工作中的倾听能力吗？倾听圈对员工情绪和认知的影响”，《欧洲工作与组织心理学杂志》第 26 卷（2017 年）：663–76 页。

working on being better listeners : Guy Itzchakov and Avraham N. Kluger, “The Power of Listening in Helping People Change,” Harvard Business Review , May 17, 2018, hbr.org/2018/05/the-power-of-listening-in-helping-people-change .

努力成为更好的倾听者：Guy Itzchakov 和 Avraham N. Kluger，《倾听的力量在帮助人们改变中》，《哈佛商业评论》，2018 年 5 月 17 日，hbr.org/2018/05/the-power-of-listening-in-helping-people-change。

“How can I tell what I think” : E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1927/1956); see also Graham Wallas, The Art of Thought (Kent, England: Solis Press, 1926/2014).

“我如何表达我的想法”：E. M. 福斯特，《小说面面观》（纽约：霍顿·米夫林，1927/1956）；另请参阅格雷厄姆·沃拉斯，《思想的艺术》（英国肯特：索利斯出版社，1926/2014）。

“an inverse charisma” : Wendy Moffat, E. M. Forster: A New Life (London: Bloomsbury, 2011).

“一种相反的魅力”：温迪·莫法特，E. M.福斯特：新生活（伦敦：布卢姆斯伯里，2011 年）。

managers rated as the worst listeners : Judi Brownell, “Perceptions of Effective Listeners: A Management Study,” International Journal of Business Communication 27 (1973): 401–15.

被评为最差倾听者的经理们：朱迪·布朗内尔（Judi Brownell），“对有效倾听者的看法：一项管理研究”，国际商务沟通杂志第 27 期（1973 年）：401-15 页。

their pets were better listeners : “Poll: 1 in 3 Women Say Pets Listen Better Than Husbands,” USA Today , April 30, 2010, usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-04-30-pets-vs-spouses_N.htm .

她们的宠物更善于倾听：“民意调查：三分之一的女性表示宠物比丈夫更善于倾听”，《今日美国》，2010 年 4 月 30 日，usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-04-30-pets-vs-spouses_N.htm。

doctors to interrupt their patients : Naykky Singh Ospina et al., “Eliciting the Patient’s Agenda: Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 34 (2019): 36–40.

医生打断病人：Naykky Singh Ospina 等人，“引出病人的议程：对记录的临床会诊的二次分析”，《普通内科杂志》34（2019）：36-40。

29 seconds to describe their symptoms : M. Kim Marvel et al., “Soliciting the Patient’s Agenda: Have We Improved?,” Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (1999): 283–87.

29 秒来描述他们的症状：M. Kim Marvel 等人，“征求患者的议程：我们改进了吗？”，美国医学会杂志 281（1999 年）：283-87。

Chapter 8. Charged Conversations

第八章激烈的对话

“When conflict is cliché” : Amanda Ripley, “Complicating the Narratives,” Solutions Journalism , June 27, 2018, thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63 .

“当冲突成为陈词滥调时”：阿曼达·里普利，《使叙事复杂化》，《解决方案新闻》，2018 年 6 月 27 日，thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63。

Difficult Conversations Lab : Peter T. Coleman, The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011).

困难对话实验室：彼得·T·科尔曼，《5%：寻找看似不可能的冲突的解决方案》（纽约：PublicAffairs，2011 年）。

the article framed the debate : Katharina Kugler and Peter T. Coleman, “Get Complicated: The Effects of Complexity on Conversations over Potentially Intractable Moral Conflicts,” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (2020), onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ncmr.12192 .

文章概括了这场辩论：Katharina Kugler 和 Peter T. Coleman，《变得复杂：复杂性对潜在棘手的道德冲突对话的影响》，《谈判与冲突管理研究》（2020 年），onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ncmr.12192。

simplifying a complex continuum : Matthew Fisher and Frank C. Keil, “The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information,” Psychological Science 29 (2018): 1846–58.

简化复杂的连续体：Matthew Fisher 和 Frank C. Keil，《二元偏见：信息整合中的系统性扭曲》，《心理科学》29（2018）：1846–58。

the humorist Robert Benchley : “The Most Popular Book of the Month,” Vanity Fair , February 1920, babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032024203&view=1up&seq=203&q1=divide%20the%20world .

幽默作家罗伯特·本奇利 (Robert Benchley)：“本月最受欢迎的书籍”，《名利场》，1920 年 2 月，babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032024203&view=1up&seq=203&q1=divide%20the%20world。

a phrase from Walt Whitman : Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass , in Walt Whitman: The Complete Poems , ed. Francis Murphy (London: Penguin Classics, 1855/2005).

沃尔特·惠特曼的一句话：沃尔特·惠特曼，《草叶集》，载于《沃尔特·惠特曼：全集》，弗朗西斯·墨菲编（伦敦：企鹅经典出版社，1855/2005）。

“read less like a lawyer’s opening statement” : Ripley, “Complicating the Narratives.”

“读起来不像律师的开场陈述”：里普利，《使叙述复杂化》。

Yet polls show bipartisan consensus : Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin, “Americans of Both Parties Overwhelmingly Support ‘Red Flag’ Laws, Expanded Background Checks for Gun Buyers, Washington Post–ABC News Poll Finds,” Washington Post , September 9, 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-of-both-parties-overwhelmingly-support-red-flag-laws-expanded-gun-background-checks-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2019/09/08/97208916-ca75-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html ; Domenico Montanaro, “Poll: Most Americans Want to See Congress Pass Gun Restrictions,” NPR, September 10, 2019, www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759193047/poll-most-americans-want-to-see-congress-pass-gun-restrictions .

然而，民意调查显示两党达成了共识：Mike DeBonis 和 Emily Guskin，“华盛顿邮报-ABC 新闻民意调查发现，两党美国人绝大多数支持‘红旗’法，扩大对枪支购买者的背景调查”，《华盛顿邮报》，2019 年 9 月 9 日，www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-of-both-parties-overwhelmingly-support-red-flag-laws-expanded-gun-background-checks-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2019/09/08/97208916-ca75-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html；多梅尼科·蒙塔纳罗，“民意调查：大多数美国人希望看到国会通过枪支限制法案”，美国国家公共电台，2019 年 9 月 10 日，www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759193047/poll-most-americans-want-to-see-congress-pass-gun-restrictions。

only 59 percent of Americans : Moira Fagan and Christine Huang, “A Look at How People around the World View Climate Change,” Pew Research Center, April 18, 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change .

只有 59% 的美国人：Moira Fagan 和 Christine Huang，《看看世界各地的人们如何看待气候变化》，皮尤研究中心，2019 年 4 月 18 日，www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change。

In the past decade in the United States : “Environment,” Gallup, news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx ; “About Six in Ten Americans Think Global Warming Is Mostly Human-Caused,” Yale Program on Climate Change, December 2018, climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/climate_change_american_mind_december_2018_1-3.png .

过去十年的美国：“环境”，盖洛普，news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx；“约六成美国人认为全球变暖主要是人类造成的”，耶鲁大学气候变化项目，2018 年 12 月，climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/climate_change_american_mind_december_2018_1-3.png。

What we believe depends : Ben Tappin, Leslie Van Der Leer, and Ryan Mckay, “You’re Not Going to Change Your Mind,” New York Times , May 27, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/youre-not-going-to-change-your-mind.html .

我们相信什么取决于：Ben Tappin、Leslie Van Der Leer 和 Ryan Mckay，《你不会改变主意》，《纽约时报》，2017 年 5 月 27 日，www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/youre-not-going-to-change-your-mind.html。

higher levels of education predict : Lawrence C. Hamilton, “Education, Politics and Opinions about Climate Change: Evidence for Interaction Effects,” Climatic Change 104 (2011): 231–42.

较高教育水平预测：Lawrence C. Hamilton，“关于气候变化的教育、政治和观点：相互作用的证据”，气候变化 104（2011）：231-42。

“Some still doubt” : Al Gore, “The Case for Optimism on Climate Change,” TED, February 2016, www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change .

“仍有人怀疑”：阿尔·戈尔，《对气候变化持乐观态度的理由》，TED，2016 年 2 月，www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change。

he was called the Elvis : Steven Levy, “We Are Now at Peak TED,” Wired , February 19, 2016, www.wired.com/2016/02/we-are-now-at-peak-ted .

他被称为猫王：史蒂文·利维，“我们现在处于 TED 巅峰”，《连线》，2016 年 2 月 19 日，www.wired.com/2016/02/we-are-now-at-peak-ted。

contrasted scientists with “climate deniers” : Al Gore, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change,” New York Times , February 27, 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html .

将科学家与“气候否认者”进行对比：阿尔·戈尔，《我们不能希望气候变化消失》，《纽约时报》，2010 年 2 月 27 日，www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html。

six camps of thought : “Global Warming’s Six Americas,” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas .

六大思想阵营：“全球变暖的六个美国”，耶鲁大学气候变化交流项目，climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas。

climate contrarians received disproportionate coverage : Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling, “Discrepancy in Scientific Authority and Media Visibility of Climate Change Scientists and Contrarians,” Nature Communications 10 (2019): 3502.

气候反对者获得了不成比例的报道：Alexander Michael Petersen、Emmanuel M. Vincent 和 Anthony LeRoy Westerling，“气候变化科学家和反对者的科学权威和媒体知名度之间的差异”，《自然通讯》10（2019）：3502。

overestimating how common denial is : Matto Mildenberger and Dustin Tingley, “Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics,” British Journal of Political Science 49 (2019): 1279–307.

高估了否认的普遍程度：Matto Mildenberger 和 Dustin Tingley，“关于气候信念的信念：二阶意见对气候政治的重要性”，《英国政治学杂志》49（2019 年）：1279–307。

within denial there are at least six different categories : Philipp Schmid and Cornelia Betsch, “Effective Strategies for Rebutting Science Denialism in Public Discussions,” Nature Human Behavior 3 (2019): 931–39.

在否认中至少有六种不同的类别：Philipp Schmid 和 Cornelia Betsch，“在公开讨论中反驳科学否认主义的有效策略”，《自然人类行为》3（2019）：931–39。

when journalists acknowledge the uncertainties : Anne Marthe van der Bles et al., “The Effects of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Trust in Facts and Numbers,” PNAS 117 (2020): 7672–83.

当记者承认不确定性时：Anne Marthe van der Bles 等人，“传达不确定性对公众对事实和数字的信任的影响”，PNAS 117 (2020): 7672–83。

when experts express doubt : Uma R. Karmarkar and Zakary L. Tormala, “Believe Me, I Have No Idea What I’m Talking About: The Effects of Source Certainty on Consumer Involvement and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research 36 (2010): 1033–49.

当专家表示怀疑时：Uma R. Karmarkar 和 Zakary L. Tormala，“相信我，我不知道我在说什么：信息来源确定性对消费者参与和说服的影响”，消费者研究杂志 36（2010）：1033-49。

media reported on a study : Tania Lombrozo, “In Science Headlines, Should Nuance Trump Sensation?,” NPR, August 3, 2015, www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/08/03/428984912/in-science-headlines-should-nuance-trump-sensation .

媒体报道了一项研究：Tania Lombrozo，“在科学头条新闻中，细微差别应该胜过轰动效应吗？”，NPR，2015 年 8 月 3 日，www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/08/03/428984912/in-science-headlines-should-nuance-trump-sensation。

The actual study showed : Vincenzo Solfrizzi et al., “Coffee Consumption Habits and the Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging,” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 47 (2015): 889–99.

实际研究显示：Vincenzo Solfrizzi等人，“咖啡消费习惯与轻度认知障碍风险：意大利老龄化纵向研究”，《阿尔茨海默病杂志》47（2015）：889–99。

jolt of instant complexity : Ariana Eunjung Cha, “Yesterday’s Coffee Science: It’s Good for the Brain. Today: Not So Fast . . .*” Washington Post , August 28, 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/30/yesterdays-coffee-science-its-good-for-the-brain-today-not-so-fast .

瞬间复杂性带来的震撼：Ariana Eunjung Cha，“昨日的咖啡科学：有益于大脑。今日：别那么快……”*《华盛顿邮报》，2015 年 8 月 28 日，www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/30/yesterdays-coffee-science-its-good-for-the-brain-today-not-so-fast。

Scientists overwhelmingly agree : “Do Scientists Agree on Climate Change?,” NASA, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change ; John Cook et al., “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming,” Environmental Research Letters 11 (2016): 048002; David Herring, “Isn’t There a Lot of Disagreement among Climate Scientists about Global Warming?,” ClimateWatch Magazine , February 3, 2020, www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming .

科学家们绝大多数都同意这一观点：“科学家们对气候变化的看法是否一致？”，NASA，https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change；John Cook 等人，“共识上的共识：对人类造成全球变暖的共识估计综合”，环境研究快报 11（2016 年）：048002；David Herring，“气候科学家们对全球变暖的看法难道不是有很多分歧吗？”，气候观察杂志，2020 年 2 月 3 日，www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming。

a range of views on the actual effects : Carolyn Gramling, “Climate Models Agree Things Will Get Bad. Capturing Just How Bad Is Tricky,” ScienceNews , January 7, 2020, www.sciencenews.org/article/why-climate-change-models-disagree-earth-worst-case-scenarios .

关于实际影响的一系列观点：Carolyn Gramling，“气候模型表明情况会恶化。但要准确判断恶化程度却并非易事”，《科学新闻》，2020 年 1 月 7 日，www.sciencenews.org/article/why-climate-change-models-disagree-earth-worst-case-scenarios。

people are more motivated to act : Paul G. Bain et al., “Co-Benefits of Addressing Climate Change Can Motivate Action around the World,” Nature Climate Change 6 (2016): 154–57.

人们更有动力采取行动：Paul G. Bain 等人，“应对气候变化的共同效益可以激励世界各地的行动”，《自然气候变化》6（2016 年）：154-57。

preserving the purity of nature : Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer, “The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes,” Psychological Science 24 (2013): 56–62.

保护自然的纯净：Matthew Feinberg 和 Robb Willer，《环境态度的道德根源》，《心理科学》24（2013）：56-62。

protecting the planet as an act of patriotism : Christopher Wolsko, Hector Ariceaga, and Jesse Seiden, “Red, White, and Blue Enough to Be Green: Effects of Moral Framing on Climate Change Attitudes and Conservation Behaviors,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 65 (2016): 7–19.

保护地球是一种爱国主义行为：Christopher Wolsko、Hector Ariceaga 和 Jesse Seiden，“红色、白色和蓝色足以成为绿色：道德框架对气候变化态度和保护行为的影响”，《实验社会心理学杂志》65（2016 年）：7-19。

people will ignore or even deny : Troy H. Campbell and Aaron C. Kay, “Solution Aversion: On the Relation between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107 (2014): 809–24.

人们会忽视甚至否认：Troy H. Campbell 和 Aaron C. Kay，“解决方案厌恶：论意识形态与动机性不信仰之间的关系”，人格与社会心理学杂志 107（2014）：809-24。

examples of headlines : Mary Annaise Heglar, “I Work in the Environmental Movement. I Don’t Care If You Recycle,” Vox , May 28, 2019, www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal ; Bob Berwyn, “Can Planting a Trillion Trees Stop Climate Change? Scientists Say It’s a Lot More Complicated,” Inside Climate News , May 27, 2020, insideclimatenews.org/news/26052020/trillion-trees-climate-change?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrb6n1qHF6gIVFInICh2kggWNEAAYAiAAEgI-sPD_BwE .

标题示例：Mary Annaise Heglar，“我从事环保运动。我不在乎你是否回收利用”，Vox，2019 年 5 月 28 日，www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/28/18629833/climate-change-2019-green-new-deal；Bob Berwyn，“种植一万亿棵树能阻止气候变化吗？科学家说这要复杂得多”，Inside Climate News，2020 年 5 月 27 日，insideclimatenews.org/news/26052020/trillion-trees-climate-change?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrb6n1qHF6gIVFInICh2kggWNEAAYAiAAEgI-sPD_BwE。

when news reports about science included caveats : Lewis Bott et al., “Caveats in Science-Based News Stories Communicate Caution without Lowering Interest,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 25 (2019): 517–42.

当有关科学的新闻报道包含警告时：Lewis Bott 等人，“基于科学的新闻报道中的警告传达了谨慎而不降低兴趣”，《实验心理学杂志：应用》25（2019）：517–42。

diversity of background and thought : See, for example, Ute Hülsheger, Neil R. Anderson, and Jesus F. Salgado, “Team-Level Predictors of Innovation at Work: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis Spanning Three Decades of Research,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009): 1128–45; Cristian L. Dezsö and David Gaddis Ross, “Does Female Representation in Top Management Improve Firm Performance? A Panel Data Investigation,” Strategic Management Journal 33 (2012): 1072–89; Samuel R. Sommers, “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Composition on Jury Deliberations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (2006): 597–612; Denise Lewin Loyd et al., “Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus,” Organization Science 24 (2013): 757–72.

背景和思想的多样性：例如，请参阅 Ute Hülsheger、Neil R. Anderson 和 Jesus F. Salgado 的“团队层面的工作创新预测因素：一项跨越三十年研究的综合荟萃分析”，《应用心理学杂志》94（2009 年）：1128-1145；Cristian L. Dezsö 和 David Gaddis Ross 的“女性在高层管理人员中的代表性是否会提高公司业绩？一项面板数据调查”，《战略管理杂志》33（2012 年）：1072-1089；Samuel R. Sommers 的“论种族多样性和群体决策：确定种族构成对陪审团审议的多重影响”，《人格与社会心理学杂志》90（2006 年）：597-612； Denise Lewin Loyd 等人，“社会类别多样性促进会前细化：关系焦点的作用”，组织科学 24（2013）：757-72。

potential is realized in some situations : Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret A. Neale, “What Differences Make a Difference? The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6 (2005): 31–55.

在某些情况下，潜力能够得以实现：Elizabeth Mannix 和 Margaret A. Neale，“哪些差异会带来不同？组织中多元化团队的承诺与现实”，《公共利益心理科学》6（2005）：31-55。

(and more accurate): “Diversity is good, but it isn’t easy” : Lisa Leslie, “What Makes a Workplace Diversity Program Successful?,” Center for Positive Organizations , January 22, 2020, positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/news/what-makes-a-workplace-diversity-program-successful .

（更准确）：“多样性是好的，但并不容易”：Lisa Leslie，“什么使工作场所多样性计划成功？”，积极组织中心，2020 年 1 月 22 日，positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/news/what-makes-a-workplace-diversity-program-successful。

“The Mixed Effects” : Edward H. Chang et al., “The Mixed Effects of Online Diversity Training,” PNAS 116 (2019): 7778–83.

“混合效应”：Edward H. Chang 等人，“在线多样性培训的混合效应”，PNAS 116 (2019): 7778–83。

“maintain a consistent narrative” : Julian Matthews, “A Cognitive Scientist Explains Why Humans Are So Susceptible to Fake News and Misinformation,” NiemanLab, April 17, 2019, www.niemanlab.org/2019/04/a-cognitive-scientist-explains-why-humans-are-so-susceptible-to-fake-news-and-misinformation .

“保持一致的叙述”：朱利安·马修斯，《一位认知科学家解释人类为何如此容易受到假新闻和错误信息的影响》，尼曼实验室，2019 年 4 月 17 日，www.niemanlab.org/2019/04/a-cognitive-scientist-explains-why-humans-are-so-susceptible-to-fake-news-and-misinformation。

divide around emotional intelligence : Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (New York: Bantam Books, 1995) and “What Makes a Leader?,” Harvard Business Review , January 2004; Jordan B. Peterson, “There Is No Such Thing as EQ,” Quora, August 22, 2019, www.quora.com/What-is-more-beneficial-in-all-aspects-of-life-a-high-EQ-or-IQ-This-question-is-based-on-the-assumption-that-only-your-EQ-or-IQ-is-high-with-the-other-being-average-or-below-this-average .

围绕情商的分歧：丹尼尔·戈尔曼，《情商：为何它比智商更重要》（纽约：班塔姆图书，1995 年）和《什么造就了领导者？》，《哈佛商业评论》，2004 年 1 月；乔丹·B·彼得森，“情商无所谓”，Quora，2019 年 8 月 22 日，www.quora.com/What-is-more-beneficial-in-all-aspects-of-life-a-high-EQ-or-IQ-This-question-is-based-on-the-assumption-that-only-your-EQ-or-IQ-is-high-with-the-other-being-average-or-below-this-average。

the comprehensive meta-analyses : Dana L. Joseph and Daniel A. Newman, “Emotional Intelligence: An Integrative Meta-analysis and Cascading Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (2010): 54–78; Dana L. Joseph et al., “Why Does Self-Reported EI Predict Job Performance? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mixed EI,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (2015): 298–342.

综合荟萃分析：Dana L. Joseph 和 Daniel A. Newman，“情商：一种综合荟萃分析和级联模型”，《应用心理学杂志》95（2010）：54-78；Dana L. Joseph 等人，“为什么自我报告的情商可以预测工作绩效？混合情商的荟萃分析研究”，《应用心理学杂志》100（2015）：298-342。

when people embrace paradoxes : Ella Miron-Spektor, Francesca Gino, and Linda Argote, “Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity through Conflict and Integration,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011): 229–40; Dustin J. Sleesman, “Pushing Through the Tension While Stuck in the Mud: Paradox Mindset and Escalation of Commitment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 155 (2019): 83–96.

当人们接受悖论时：Ella Miron-Spektor、Francesca Gino 和 Linda Argote，“矛盾的框架和创造性的火花：通过冲突和整合增强个人创造力”，组织行为与人类决策过程 116 (2011): 229–40；Dustin J. Sleesman，“在泥潭中突破紧张局势：悖论心态和承诺的升级”，组织行为与人类决策过程 155 (2019): 83–96。

beneficial in jobs that involve dealing with emotions : Joseph and Newman, “Emotional Intelligence.”

对于涉及处理情绪的工作很有帮助：约瑟夫和纽曼的《情商》。

a thousand comments poured in : Adam Grant, “Emotional Intelligence Is Overrated,” LinkedIn, September 30, 2014, www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated .

一千条评论纷至沓来：亚当·格兰特（Adam Grant），《情商被高估了》，LinkedIn，2014 年 9 月 30 日，www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated。

Some teachers are determined : Olga Khazan, “The Myth of ‘Learning Styles,’” The Atlantic , April 11, 2018, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687 .

有些老师很坚定：Olga Khazan，《学习风格之谜》，《大西洋月刊》，2018 年 4 月 11 日，www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687。

they don’t actually learn better that way : Harold Pashler et al., “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9 (2008): 105–19.

他们实际上并没有通过这种方式学得更好：Harold Pashler 等人，“学习风格：概念和证据”，公共利益心理科学 9（2008）：105-19。

meditation isn’t the only way : Adam Grant, “Can We End the Meditation Madness?,” New York Times , October 9, 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/can-we-end-the-meditation-madness.html .

冥想并非唯一方法：亚当·格兰特，《我们能结束冥想狂热吗？》，《纽约时报》，2015 年 10 月 9 日，www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/can-we-end-the-meditation-madness.html。

the Myers-Briggs personality tool : Adam Grant, “MBTI, If You Want Me Back, You Need to Change Too,” Medium, November 17, 2015, medium.com/@AdamMGrant/mbti-if-you-want-me-back-you-need-to-change-too-c7f1a7b6970 ; Adam Grant, “Say Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die,” LinkedIn, September 17, 2013, www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130917155206-69244073-say-goodbye-to-mbti-the-fad-that-won-t-die .

迈尔斯-布里格斯性格工具：亚当·格兰特（Adam Grant），《MBTI，如果你想让我回来，你也需要改变》，Medium，2015 年 11 月 17 日，medium.com/@AdamMGrant/mbti-if-you-want-me-back-you-need-to-change-too-c7f1a7b6970；亚当·格兰特（Adam Grant），《告别 MBTI，永不消逝的时尚》，LinkedIn，2013 年 9 月 17 日，www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130917155206-69244073-say-goodbye-to-mbti-the-fad-that-won-t-die。

being more authentic : Adam Grant, “The Fine Line between Helpful and Harmful Authenticity,” New York Times , April 10, 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/smarter-living/the-fine-line-between-helpful-and-harmful-authenticity.html ; Adam Grant, “Unless You’re Oprah, ‘Be Yourself’ Is Terrible Advice,” New York Times , June 4, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/unless-youre-oprah-be-yourself-is-terrible-advice.html .

更加真实：亚当·格兰特 (Adam Grant)，《有益的真实与有害的真实之间的微妙界限》，《纽约时报》，2020 年 4 月 10 日，www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/smarter-living/the-fine-line-between-helpful-and-harmful-authenticity.html；亚当·格兰特 (Adam Grant)，《除非你是奥普拉，否则‘做你自己’是糟糕的建议》，《纽约时报》，2016 年 6 月 4 日，www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/unless-youre-oprah-be-yourself-is-terrible-advice.html。

the veil of ignorance : John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1971).

无知之幕：约翰·罗尔斯，《正义论》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：贝尔纳普出版社，1971 年）。

randomly assigning people to reflect : Rhia Catapano, Zakary L. Tormala, and Derek D. Rucker, “Perspective Taking and Self-Persuasion: Why ‘Putting Yourself in Their Shoes’ Reduces Openness to Attitude Change,” Psychological Science 30 (2019): 424–35.

随机指派人员进行反思：Rhia Catapano、Zakary L. Tormala 和 Derek D. Rucker，“观点采择和自我说服：为什么‘设身处地为他们着想’会降低态度改变的开放性”，心理科学 30（2019）：424–35。

imagining other people’s perspectives : Tal Eyal, Mary Steffel, and Nicholas Epley, “Perspective Mistaking: Accurately Understanding the Mind of Another Requires Getting Perspective, Not Taking Perspective,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114 (2018): 547–71.

想象他人的观点：Tal Eyal、Mary Steffel 和 Nicholas Epley，“观点误解：准确理解他人的想法需要获得观点，而不是采取观点”，人格与社会心理学杂志 114（2018）：547-71。

Polls show that Democrats : Yascha Mounk, “Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—and Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans,” The Atlantic , June 23, 2019, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324 .

民意调查显示，民主党：Yascha Mounk，“共和党人不了解民主党人——民主党人也不了解共和党人”，《大西洋月刊》，2019 年 6 月 23 日，www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324。

even if we disagree strongly : Julian J. Zlatev, “I May Not Agree with You, but I Trust You: Caring about Social Issues Signals Integrity,” Psychological Science 30 (2019): 880–92.

即使我们意见强烈分歧：Julian J. Zlatev，“我可能不同意你的观点，但我相信你：关心社会问题表明诚信”，心理科学30（2019）：880–92。

“ I have a lot of respect” : Corinne Bendersky, “Resolving Ideological Conflicts by Affirming Opponents’ Status: The Tea Party, Obamacare and the 2013 Government Shutdown,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53 (2014): 163–68.

“我非常尊重”：科琳·本德斯基，《通过肯定对手的地位来解决意识形态冲突：茶党、奥巴马医改和 2013 年政府关门》，《组织行为与人类决策过程》53（2014 年）：163-68。

People get trapped in emotional simplicity : Patti Williams and Jennifer L. Aaker, “Can Mixed Emotions Peacefully Coexist?,” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2002): 636–49.

人们陷入了情感的简单化：Patti Williams 和 Jennifer L. Aaker，“复杂的情绪能够和平共处吗？”，《消费者研究杂志》第 28 卷（2002 年）：636–49 页。

Japanese gives us koi no yokan : Beca Grimm, “11 Feelings There Are No Words for in English,” Bustle , July 15, 2015, www.bustle.com/articles/97413-11-feelings-there-are-no-words-for-in-english-for-all-you-emotional-word-nerds-out .

日语中出现了“koi no yokan”：Beca Grimm，《11 种英语中没有词语来形容的感觉》，Bustle，2015 年 7 月 15 日，www.bustle.com/articles/97413-11-feelings-there-are-no-words-for-in-english-for-all-you-emotional-word-nerds-out。

The Inuit have iktsuarpok : Bill Demain et al., “51 Wonderful Words with No English Equivalent,” Mental Floss , December 14, 2015, www.mentalfloss.com/article/50698/38-wonderful-foreign-words-we-could-use-english .

因纽特人有 iktsuarpok：Bill Demain 等人，“51 个没有英语对应词的奇妙词汇”，Mental Floss，2015 年 12 月 14 日，www.mentalfloss.com/article/50698/38-wonderful-foreign-words-we-could-use-english。

kummerspeck , the extra weight : Kate Bratskeir, “‘Kummerspeck,’ or Grief Bacon, Is the German Word for What Happens When You Eat When You’re Sad,” Mic, December 19, 2017, www.mic.com/articles/186933/kummerspeck-or-grief-bacon-is-the-german-word-for-eating-when-sad .

kummerspeck，额外的体重：Kate Bratskeir，“‘Kummerspeck’，或悲伤培根，是德语单词，意思是当你悲伤时吃东西会发生什么”，Mic，2017 年 12 月 19 日，www.mic.com/articles/186933/kummerspeck-or-grief-bacon-is-the-german-word-for-eating-when-sad。

“Racist and antiracist are not fixed identities” : Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019).

“种族主义者和反种族主义者不是固定的身份”：Ibram X. Kendi，《如何成为一名反种族主义者》（纽约：One World，2019 年）。

Christian Cooper refused : Don Lemon, “She Called Police on Him in Central Park. Hear His Response,” CNN, May 27, 2020, www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/27/christian-cooper-central-park-video-lemon-ctn-sot-intv-vpx.cnn .

克里斯蒂安·库珀拒绝了：唐·莱蒙，“她在中央公园报警。听听他的回应”，美国有线电视新闻网，2020 年 5 月 27 日，www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/27/christian-cooper-central-park-video-lemon-ctn-sot-intv-vpx.cnn。

Chapter 9. Rewriting the Textbook

第九章重写教科书

“No schooling was allowed to interfere” : Grant Allen [pseud. Olive Pratt Rayner], Rosalba: The Story of Her Development (London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1899).

“不允许任何学校教育干扰”：格兰特·艾伦（笔名奥利夫·普拉特·雷纳）著，《罗莎芭：她的成长故事》（伦敦：G. P. 普特南之子出版社，1899 年）。

Wisconsin’s Teacher of the Year : Personal interview with Erin McCarthy, January 14, 2020; Scott Anderson, “Wisconsin National Teacher of the Year Nominee Is from Greendale,” Patch, August 20, 2019, patch.com/wisconsin/greendale/wisconsin-national-teacher-year-nominee-greendale .

威斯康星州年度教师：与 Erin McCarthy 的个人访谈，2020 年 1 月 14 日；Scott Anderson，《威斯康星州年度全国教师提名人来自格林代尔》，《Patch》，2019 年 8 月 20 日，patch.com/wisconsin/greendale/wisconsin-national-teacher-year-nominee-greendale。

It’s “a task that” : Deborah Kelemen, “The Magic of Mechanism: Explanation-Based Instruction on Counterintuitive Concepts in Early Childhood,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 14 (2019): 510–22.

这是“一项任务”：Deborah Kelemen，《机制的魔力：基于解释的幼儿反直觉概念教学》，《心理科学视角》14（2019）：510–22。

don’t have a single right answer : Sam Wineburg, Daisy Martin, and Chauncey Monte-Sano, Reading Like a Historian (New York: Teachers College Press, 2013).

没有一个正确的答案：Sam Wineburg、Daisy Martin 和 Chauncey Monte-Sano，《像历史学家一样阅读》（纽约：教师学院出版社，2013 年）。

curriculum developed at Stanford : “Teacher Materials and Resources,” Historical Thinking Matters, http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/teachers/ .

斯坦福大学开发的课程：“教师材料和资源”，历史思维很重要，http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/teachers/。

even send students out to interview : Elizabeth Emery, “Have Students Interview Someone They Disagree With,” Heterodox Academy, February 11, 2020, heterodoxacademy.org/viewpoint-diversity-students-interview-someone .

甚至派学生出去采访：伊丽莎白·埃默里（Elizabeth Emery），“让学生采访他们不同意的人”，异端学院，2020 年 2 月 11 日，heterodoxacademy.org/viewpoint-diversity-students-interview-someone。

think like fact-checkers : Annabelle Timsit, “In the Age of Fake News, Here’s How Schools Are Teaching Kids to Think Like Fact-Checkers,” Quartz, February 12, 2019, qz.com/1533747/in-the-age-of-fake-news-heres-how-schools-are-teaching-kids-to-think-like-fact-checkers .

像事实核查员一样思考：Annabelle Timsit，“在虚假新闻时代，学校如何教孩子像事实核查员一样思考”，Quartz，2019 年 2 月 12 日，qz.com/1533747/in-the-age-of-fake-news-heres-how-schools-are-teaching-kids-to-think-like-fact-checkers。

King Tut : Rose Troup Buchanan, “King Tutankhamun Did Not Die in Chariot Crash, Virtual Autopsy Reveals,” Independent , October 20, 2014, www.independent.co.uk/news/science/king-tutankhamun-did-not-die-in-chariot-crash-virtual-autopsy-reveals-9806586.html .

图坦卡蒙国王：罗斯·特鲁普·布坎南，《虚拟尸检显示图坦卡蒙国王并未死于战车事故》，《独立报》，2014 年 10 月 20 日，www.independent.co.uk/news/science/king-tutankhamun-did-not-die-in-chariot-crash-virtual-autopsy-reveals-9806586.html。

when sloths do their version : Brian Resnick, “Farts: Which Animals Do, Which Don’t, and Why,” Vox , October 19, 2018, www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/3/17188186/does-it-fart-book-animal-farts-dinosaur-farts .

树懒放屁时的情形：Brian Resnick，《放屁：哪些动物会放，哪些不会放，以及原因》，Vox，2018 年 10 月 19 日，www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/3/17188186/does-it-fart-book-animal-farts-dinosaur-farts。

delivered by lecture : Louis Deslauriers et al., “Measuring Actual Learning versus Feeling of Learning in Response to Being Actively Engaged in the Classroom,” PNAS 116 (2019): 19251–57.

讲座形式：Louis Deslauriers 等人，“衡量课堂上积极参与的实际学习与学习感觉”，PNAS 116（2019）：19251–57。

students scored half a letter grade worse under traditional lecturing : Scott Freeman et al., “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics,” PNAS 111 (2014): 8410–15.

在传统讲课方式下，学生的成绩要低半个等级：Scott Freeman 等人，“主动学习提高学生在科学、工程和数学方面的表现”，PNAS 111（2014）：8410-15。

the awestruck effect : Jochen I. Menges et al., “The Awestruck Effect: Followers Suppress Emotion Expression in Response to Charismatic but Not Individually Considerate Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015): 626–40.

敬畏效应：Jochen I. Menges 等人，“敬畏效应：追随者在面对魅力型而非个体体贴型领导时抑制情绪表达”，《领导力季刊》第 26 卷（2015 年）：626-40 页。

the dumbstruck effect : Adam Grant, “The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence,” The Atlantic , January 2, 2014, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720 .

目瞪口呆效应：亚当·格兰特，《情商的阴暗面》，《大西洋月刊》，2014 年 1 月 2 日，www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720。

In North American universities : M. Stains et al., “Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities,” Science 359 (2018): 1468–70.

在北美大学：M. Stains 等人，“北美大学 STEM 教学剖析”，Science 359（2018）：1468–70。

half of teachers lecture : Grant Wiggins, “Why Do So Many HS History Teachers Lecture So Much?,” April 24, 2015, grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/why-do-so-many-hs-history-teachers-lecture-so-much .

一半的教师讲课：格兰特·威金斯 (Grant Wiggins)，“为什么这么多高中历史教师讲课这么多？”，2015 年 4 月 24 日，grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/why-do-so-many-hs-history-teachers-lecture-so-much。

middle schoolers score higher : Guido Schwerdt and Amelie C. Wupperman, “Is Traditional Teaching Really All That Bad? A Within-Student Between-Subject Approach,” Economics of Education Review 30 (2011): 365–79.

中学生得分更高：Guido Schwerdt 和 Amelie C. Wupperman，“传统教学真的那么糟糕吗？学生内学科间教学法”，教育经济学评论 30（2011）：365-79。

enter an “experience machine” : Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

进入“体验机器”：罗伯特·诺齐克，《无政府主义、国家和乌托邦》（纽约：Basic Books，1974 年）。

“I do my thinking through the courses I give” : Asahina Robert, “The Inquisitive Robert Nozick,” New York Times , September 20, 1981, www.nytimes.com/1981/09/20/books/the-inquisitive-robert-nozick.html .

“我通过我教授的课程进行思考”：Asahina Robert，《好奇的罗伯特·诺齐克》，《纽约时报》，1981 年 9 月 20 日，www.nytimes.com/1981/09/20/books/the-inquisitive-robert-nozick.html。

“Presenting a completely polished” : Ken Gewertz, “Philosopher Nozick Dies at 63,” Harvard Gazette , January 17, 2002, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/01/philosopher-nozick-dies-at-63 ; see also Hilary Putnam et al., “Robert Nozick: Memorial Minute,” Harvard Gazette , May 6, 2004, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/05/robert-nozick .

“呈现一份完全精致的”：Ken Gewertz，《哲学家诺齐克逝世，享年 63 岁》，《哈佛公报》，2002 年 1 月 17 日，news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/01/philosopher-nozick-dies-at-63；另请参阅 Hilary Putnam 等，《罗伯特·诺齐克：纪念备忘录》，《哈佛公报》，2004 年 5 月 6 日，news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/05/robert-nozick。

most of us would ditch the machine : Felipe De Brigard, “If You Like It, Does It Matter If It’s Real?,” Philosophical Psychology 23 (2010): 43–57.

我们大多数人都会抛弃机器：Felipe De Brigard，“如果你喜欢它，它是否真实重要吗？”，哲学心理学 23（2010）：43-57。

perfectionists are more likely : Joachim Stoeber and Kathleen Otto, “Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism: Approaches, Evidence, Challenges,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 10 (2006): 295–319.

完美主义者更有可能：Joachim Stoeber 和 Kathleen Otto，“完美主义的积极概念：方法、证据、挑战”，人格与社会心理学评论 10（2006）：295-319。

they don’t perform any better : Dana Harari et al., “Is Perfect Good? A Meta-analysis of Perfectionism in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Psychology 103 (2018): 1121–44.

他们的表现也没有任何提高：Dana Harari 等人，“完美是好的吗？职场完美主义的元分析”，《应用心理学杂志》103（2018）：1121–44。

grades are not a strong predictor : Philip L. Roth et al., “Meta-analyzing the Relationship between Grades and Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (1996): 548–56.

成绩并不是一个强有力的预测因素：Philip L. Roth 等人，“成绩与工作绩效关系的元分析”，应用心理学杂志 81（1996 年）：548-56。

Achieving excellence in school : Adam Grant, “What Straight-A Students Get Wrong,” New York Times , December 8, 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/college-gpa-career-success.html .

在学校取得优异成绩：亚当·格兰特 (Adam Grant)，《全优学生错在哪里》，《纽约时报》，2018 年 12 月 8 日，www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/college-gpa-career-success.html。

the most creative ones graduated : Donald W. Mackinnon, “The Nature and Nurture of Creative Talent,” American Psychologist 17 (1962): 484–95.

最有创造力的学生毕业了：唐纳德·W·麦金农，“创造性人才的本质与培养”，美国心理学家 17（1962 年）：484-95。

“Valedictorians aren’t likely” : Karen Arnold, Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School Valedictorians (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).

“不太可能成为毕业生代表”：凯伦·阿诺德（Karen Arnold），《承诺的生活：高中毕业生代表的命运》（旧金山：Jossey-Bass，1995 年）。

Dear Penn Freshmen : Mike Kaiser, “This Wharton Senior’s Letter Writing Project Gets Global Attention,” Wharton School, February 17, 2016, www.wharton.upenn.edu/story/wharton-seniors-letter-writing-project-gets-global-attention .

亲爱的宾夕法尼亚大学新生：迈克·凯泽，《沃顿商学院这位大四学生的书信写作项目获得全球关注》，沃顿商学院，2016 年 2 月 17 日，www.wharton.upenn.edu/story/wharton-seniors-letter-writing-project-gets-global-attention。

one of the best ways to learn is to teach : Aloysius Wei Lun Koh, Sze Chi Lee, and Stephen Wee Hun Lim, “The Learning Benefits of Teaching: A Retrieval Practice Hypothesis,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 32 (2018): 401–10; Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer, “The Relative Benefits of Learning by Teaching and Teaching Expectancy,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013): 281–88; Robert B. Zajonc and Patricia R. Mullally, “Birth Order: Reconciling Conflicting Effects,” American Psychologist 52 (1997): 685–99; Peter A. Cohen, James A. Kulik, and Chen-Lin C. Kulik, “Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings,” American Educational Research Journal 19 (1982): 237–48.

学习的最好方法之一就是教：Aloysius Wei Lun Koh、Sze Chi Lee 和 Stephen Wee Hun Lim，“教学的学习益处：检索练习假说”，《应用认知心理学》32（2018）：401-10；Logan Fiorella 和 Richard E. Mayer，“通过教学和教学期望学习的相对益处”，《当代教育心理学》38（2013）：281-88；Robert B. Zajonc 和 Patricia R. Mullally，“出生顺序：调和冲突影响”，《美国心理学家》52（1997）：685-99； Peter A. Cohen、James A. Kulik 和 Chen-Lin C. Kulik，“辅导的教育成果：研究结果的元分析”，美国教育研究杂志 19（1982 年）：237-48。

an ethic of excellence : Personal interview with Ron Berger, October 29, 2019; Ron Berger, An Ethic of Excellence: Building a Culture of Craftsmanship with Students (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2003); Ron Berger, Leah Rugen, and Libby Woodfin, Leaders of Their Own Learning: Transforming Schools through Student-Engaged Assessment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014).

卓越的道德：与 Ron Berger 的个人访谈，2019 年 10 月 29 日；Ron Berger，《卓越的道德：与学生一起建立工匠精神文化》（新罕布什尔州朴茨茅斯：Heinemann，2003 年）；Ron Berger、Leah Rugen 和 Libby Woodfin，《自身学习的领导者：通过学生参与式评估改变学校》（旧金山：Jossey-Bass，2014 年）。

hallmarks of an open mind : Kirill Fayn et al., “Confused or Curious? Openness/Intellect Predicts More Positive Interest-Confusion Relations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117 (2019): 1016–33.

开放心态的标志：Kirill Fayn 等人，“困惑还是好奇？开放性/智力预示着更积极的兴趣-困惑关系”，人格与社会心理学杂志 117（2019）：1016-1033。

“I need time for my confusion” : Eleanor Duckworth, The Having of Wonderful Ideas (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006).

“我需要时间来排解我的困惑”：埃莉诺·达克沃斯（Eleanor Duckworth），《拥有奇妙的想法》（纽约：教师学院出版社，2006 年）。

Confusion can be a cue : Elisabeth Vogl et al., “Surprised-Curious-Confused: Epistemic Emotions and Knowledge Exploration,” Emotion 20 (2020): 625–41.

困惑可能是一个线索：Elisabeth Vogl 等人，“惊讶-好奇-困惑：认知情绪和知识探索”，Emotion 20（2020）：625–41。

scientifically accurate drawing of a butterfly : Ron Berger, “Critique and Feedback—The Story of Austin’s Butterfly,” December 8, 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqh1MRWZjms .

科学准确的蝴蝶图画：罗恩·伯杰（Ron Berger），《批评与反馈——奥斯汀的蝴蝶的故事》，2012 年 12 月 8 日，www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqh1MRWZjms。

Chapter 10. That’s Not the Way We’ve Always Done It

第十章我们的做法并非如此

“If only it weren’t for the people” : Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano (New York: Dial Press, 1952/2006).

“如果不是为了人民”：库尔特·冯内古特，《自动钢琴》（纽约：戴尔出版社，1952/2006 年）。

“scariest wardrobe malfunction in NASA history” : Tony Reichhardt, “The Spacewalk That Almost Killed Him,” Air & Space Magazine , May 2014, www.airspacemag.com/space/spacewalk-almost-killed-him-180950135/?all .

“NASA 历史上最可怕的服装故障”：托尼·莱克哈特，《差点要了他的命的太空行走》，《航空航天杂志》，2014 年 5 月，www.airspacemag.com/space/spacewalk-almost-killed-him-180950135/?all。

in learning cultures, organizations innovate more : Matej Černe et al., “What Goes Around Comes Around: Knowledge Hiding, Perceived Motivational Climate, and Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal 57 (2014): 172–92; Markus Baer and Michael Frese, “Innovation Is Not Enough: Climates for Initiative and Psychological Safety, Process Innovations, and Firm Performance,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (2003): 45–68.

在学习型文化中，组织创新更多：Matej Černe 等人，“善有善报：知识隐藏、感知激励氛围和创造力”，《管理学院期刊》57（2014 年）：172-92；Markus Baer 和 Michael Frese，“创新是不够的：主动性和心理安全氛围、流程创新和公司绩效”，《组织行为学杂志》24（2003 年）：45-68。

make fewer mistakes : Anita L. Tucker and Amy C. Edmondson, “Why Hospitals Don’t Learn from Failures: Organizational and Psychological Dynamics That Inhibit System Change,” California Management Review 45 (2003): 55–72; Amy C. Edmondson, “Learning from Mistakes Is Easier Said Than Done: Group and Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40 (1996): 5–28.

少犯错误：Anita L. Tucker 和 Amy C. Edmondson，“医院为何不从失败中吸取教训：阻碍系统变革的组织和心理动力”，加州管理评论 45（2003）：55-72；Amy C. Edmondson，“从错误中吸取教训说起来容易做起来难：群体和组织对人为错误检测和纠正的影响”，应用行为科学杂志 40（1996）：5-28。

the more psychological safety : William A. Kahn, “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work,” Academy of Management Journal 33 (1990): 692–724.

更多的心理安全：William A. Kahn，“工作中个人投入和脱离的心理条件”，管理学院期刊33（1990）：692-724。

What mattered most was psychological safety : Julia Rozovsky, “The Five Keys to a Successful Google Team,” re:Work, November 17, 2015, rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team .

最重要的是心理安全：Julia Rozovsky，“成功的 Google 团队的五个关键”，re:Work，2015 年 11 月 17 日，rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team。

psychological safety is not : Amy C. Edmondson, “How Fearless Organizations Succeed,” strategy+business, November 14, 2018, www.strategy-business.com/article/How-Fearless-Organizations-Succeed .

心理安全并非如此：Amy C. Edmondson，《无畏的组织如何取得成功》，strategy+business，2018 年 11 月 14 日，www.strategy-business.com/article/How-Fearless-Organizations-Succeed。

foundation of a learning culture : Amy Edmondson, “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1999): 350–83.

学习型文化的基础：Amy Edmondson，《工作团队中的心理安全和学习行为》，《行政科学季刊》44（1999）：350-83。

engage in self-limiting behavior : Paul W. Mulvey, John F. Veiga, and Priscilla M. Elsass, “When Teammates Raise a White Flag,” Academy of Management Perspectives 10 (1996): 40–49.

采取自我限制行为：Paul W. Mulvey、John F. Veiga 和 Priscilla M. Elsass，“当队友举起白旗时”，《管理学院观点》第 10 卷（1996 年）：40-49。

some engineers did raise red flags : Howard Berkes, “30 Years after Explosion, Challenger Engineer Still Blames Himself,” NPR, January 28, 2016, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/28/464744781/30-years-after-disaster-challenger-engineer-still-blames-himself .

一些工程师确实提出了警告：Howard Berkes，“爆炸 30 年后，挑战者号工程师仍在自责”，NPR，2016 年 1 月 28 日，www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/28/464744781/30-years-after-disaster-challenger-engineer-still-blames-himself。

an engineer asked for clearer photographs : Joel Bach, “Engineer Sounded Warnings for Columbia, ” ABC News , January 7, 2006, abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97600&page=1 .

一名工程师要求提供更清晰的照片：Joel Bach，“工程师向哥伦比亚号发出警告”，ABC 新闻，2006 年 1 月 7 日，abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97600&page=1。

prevent this kind of disaster from ever happening again : Personal interview with Ellen Ochoa, December 12, 2019.

防止此类灾难再次发生：对艾伦·奥乔亚的个人采访，2019 年 12 月 12 日。

How do you know? : Personal interview with Chris Hansen, November 12, 2019.

你怎么知道？：2019 年 11 月 12 日对克里斯·汉森的个人采访。

gains in psychological safety a full year later : Constantinos G. V. Coutifaris and Adam M. Grant, “Taking Your Team Behind the Curtain: The Effects of Leader Feedback-Sharing, Feedback-Seeking, and Humility on Team Psychological Safety Over Time” (working paper, 2020).

一年后心理安全感有所提升：Constantinos G. V. Coutifaris 和 Adam M. Grant，“让你的团队走到幕后：领导者反馈分享、反馈寻求和谦逊对团队心理安全感的长期影响”（工作论文，2020 年）。

harsh comments from student course evaluations : Wharton Follies, “Mean Reviews: Professor Edition,” March 22, 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=COOaEVSu6ms&t=3s .

学生课程评估中的严厉评论：沃顿愚行，“刻薄评论：教授版”，2015 年 3 月 22 日，www.youtube.com/watch?v=COOaEVSu6ms&t=3s。

Sharing our imperfections : Celia Moore et al., “The Advantage of Being Oneself: The Role of Applicant Self-Verification in Organizational Hiring Decisions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (2017): 1493–513.

分享我们的不完美：Celia Moore 等人，“做自己的优势：申请人自我验证在组织招聘决策中的作用”，应用心理学杂志 102（2017 年）：1493–513。

people who haven’t yet proven their competence : Kerry Roberts Gibson, Dana Harari, and Jennifer Carson Marr, “When Sharing Hurts: How and Why Self-Disclosing Weakness Undermines the Task-Oriented Relationships of Higher-Status Disclosers,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 144 (2018): 25–43.

尚未证明自己能力的人：Kerry Roberts Gibson、Dana Harari 和 Jennifer Carson Marr，“当分享有害时：自我披露的弱点如何以及为何会破坏高地位披露者的任务导向关系”，组织行为与人类决策过程 144（2018 年）：25-43。

Focusing on results : Itamar Simonson and Barry M. Staw, “Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (1992): 419–26; Jennifer S. Lerner and Philip E. Tetlock, “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,” Psychological Bulletin 125 (1999): 255–75.

注重结果：Itamar Simonson 和 Barry M. Staw，“降级策略：减少对失败行动方针的承诺的技术比较”，应用心理学杂志 77（1992）：419-26；Jennifer S. Lerner 和 Philip E. Tetlock，“解释责任的影响”，心理学公报 125（1999）：255-75。

we create a learning zone : Amy C. Edmondson, “The Competitive Imperative of Learning,” Harvard Business Review , July-August 2008, hbr.org/2008/07/the-competitive-imperative-of-learning .

我们创建了一个学习区：Amy C. Edmondson，《学习的竞争必要性》，《哈佛商业评论》，2008 年 7 月至 8 月，hbr.org/2008/07/the-competitive-imperative-of-learning。

“will you gamble with me on it?” : Jeff Bezos, “2016 Letter to Shareholders,” www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312517120198/d373368dex991.htm .

“你愿意和我一起赌一把吗？”：杰夫·贝佐斯，《2016 年致股东的信》，www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312517120198/d373368dex991.htm。

a study of California banks : Barry M. Staw, Sigal G. Barsade, and Kenneth W. Koput, “Escalation at the Credit Window: A Longitudinal Study of Bank Executives’ Recognition and Write-Off of Problem Loans,” Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997): 130–42.

对加州银行的研究：Barry M. Staw、Sigal G. Barsade 和 Kenneth W. Koput，“信贷窗口的升级：对银行高管识别和注销问题贷款的纵向研究”，应用心理学杂志 82（1997 年）：130-42。

Chapter 11. Escaping Tunnel Vision

第十一章摆脱隧道视野

“A malaise set in” : Jack Handey, “My First Day in Hell,” New Yorker , October 23, 2006, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/30/my-first-day-in-hell .

“一种不适感油然而生”：杰克·汉迪，《我在地狱的第一天》，《纽约客》，2006 年 10 月 23 日，www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/30/my-first-day-in-hell。

the combination of blurting and flirting : William B. Swann Jr. and Peter J. Rentfrow, “Blirtatiousness: Cognitive, Behavioral, and Physiological Consequences of Rapid Responding,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 1160–75.

脱口而出和调情的结合：William B. Swann Jr. 和 Peter J. Rentfrow，“调情：快速反应的认知、行为和生理后果”，人格与社会心理学杂志 81（2001）：1160-75。

inspire us to set bolder goals : Locke and Latham, “Building a Practically Useful Theory.”

激励我们设定更大胆的目标：洛克和莱瑟姆，《建立一个实用的理论》。

guide us toward a path : Peter M. Gollwitzer, “Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans,” American Psychologist 54 (1999): 493–503.

引导我们走向一条道路：Peter M. Gollwitzer，“实施意图：简单计划的强大效果”，美国心理学家 54（1999）：493-503。

they can give us tunnel vision : James Y. Shah and Arie W. Kruglanski, “Forgetting All Else: On the Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Shielding,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002): 1261–80.

它们会让我们视野狭窄：James Y. Shah 和 Arie W. Kruglanski，“忘记其他一切：论目标屏蔽的前因和后果”，人格与社会心理学杂志 83（2002）：1261-80。

escalation of commitment : Barry M. Staw and Jerry Ross, “Understanding Behavior in Escalation Situations,” Science 246 (1989): 216–20.

承诺升级：Barry M. Staw 和 Jerry Ross，“理解升级情况下的行为”，Science 246（1989）：216-20。

entrepreneurs persist with failing strategies : Dustin J. Sleesman et al., “Putting Escalation of Commitment in Context: A Multilevel Review and Analysis,” Academy of Management Annals 12 (2018): 178–207.

企业家坚持失败的策略：Dustin J. Sleesman 等人，“将承诺升级置于背景中：多层次审查和分析”，管理学院年鉴 12（2018 年）：178-207。

NBA general managers : Colin F. Camerer and Roberto A. Weber, “The Econometrics and Behavioral Economics of Escalation of Commitment: A Re-examination of Staw and Hoang’s NBA Data,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 39 (1999): 59–82.

NBA 总经理：Colin F. Camerer 和 Roberto A. Weber，《承诺升级的计量经济学和行为经济学：对 Staw 和 Hoang 的 NBA 数据的重新审视》，《经济行为与组织杂志》第 39 卷（1999 年）：59-82。

politicians continue sending soldiers to wars : Glen Whyte, “Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54 (1993): 430–55.

政客们继续派遣士兵参战：Glen Whyte，《个人和团体决策中承诺的升级：前景理论方法》，组织行为与人类决策过程 54（1993）：430-55。

searching for self-justifications for our prior beliefs : Joel Brockner, “The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress,” Academy of Management Review 17 (1992): 39–61.

为我们先前的信念寻找自我辩解：乔尔·布罗克纳，“对失败行动方针的承诺升级：走向理论进步”，管理学院评论 17（1992）：39-61。

soothe our egos : Dustin J. Sleesman et al., “Cleaning Up the Big Muddy: A Meta-analytic Review of the Determinants of Escalation of Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal 55 (2012): 541–62.

安抚我们的自尊心：Dustin J. Sleesman 等人，“清理泥泞：对承诺升级决定因素的元分析回顾”，《管理学院期刊》55（2012 年）：541-62。

Grit is the combination : Jon M. Jachimowicz et al., “Why Grit Requires Perseverance and Passion to Positively Predict Performance,” PNAS 115 (2018): 9980–85; Angela Duckworth and James J. Gross, “Self-Control and Grit: Related but Separable Determinants of Success,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23 (2014): 319–25.

坚毅是两者的结合：Jon M. Jachimowicz 等人，“为什么坚毅需要毅力和激情才能积极预测表现”，PNAS 115（2018）：9980-85；Angela Duckworth 和 James J. Gross，“自我控制和坚毅：相关但可分离的成功决定因素”，Current Directions in Psychological Science 23（2014）：319-25。

more likely to overplay their hands in roulette : Larbi Alaoui and Christian Fons-Rosen, “Know When to Fold ’Em: The Grit Factor,” Universitat Pompeu Fabra: Barcela GSE Working Paper Series (2018).

更有可能在轮盘赌中玩得过火：Larbi Alaoui 和 Christian Fons-Rosen，“知道何时弃牌：勇气因素”，庞培法布拉大学：巴塞罗那 GSE 工作论文系列（2018 年）。

more willing to stay the course : Gale M. Lucas et al., “When the Going Gets Tough: Grit Predicts Costly Perseverance,” Journal of Research in Personality 59 (2015): 15–22; see also Henry Moon, “The Two Faces of Conscientiousness: Duty and Achievement Striving in Escalation of Commitment Dilemmas,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001): 533–40.

更愿意坚持到底：Gale M. Lucas 等人，“当事情变得艰难时：毅力预示着代价高昂的毅力”，人格研究杂志 59（2015 年）：15-22；另请参阅 Henry Moon，“尽责性的两面：承诺困境升级中的责任与成就追求”，应用心理学杂志 86（2001 年）：533-40。

gritty mountaineers are more likely to die : Lee Crust, Christian Swann, and Jacquelyn Allen-Collinson, “The Thin Line: A Phenomenological Study of Mental Toughness and Decision Making in Elite High-Altitude Mountaineers,” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 38 (2016): 598–611.

坚韧不拔的登山者更容易死亡：Lee Crust、Christian Swann 和 Jacquelyn Allen-Collinson，“细线：精英高海拔登山者的心理韧性和决策现象学研究”，运动与运动心理学杂志 38（2016 年）：598-611。

what psychologists call identity foreclosure : Wim Meeus et al., “Patterns of Adolescent Identity Development: Review of Literature and Longitudinal Analysis,” Developmental Review 19 (1999): 419–61.

心理学家所说的身份丧失：Wim Meeus 等人，“青少年身份发展模式：文献回顾和纵向分析”，发展评论 19（1999）：419-61。

settle prematurely on a sense of self : Otilia Obodaru, “The Self Not Taken: How Alternative Selves Develop and How They Influence Our Professional Lives,” Academy of Management Review 37 (2017): 523–53.

过早地确定自我意识：Otilia Obodaru，《未被夺走的自我：另类自我如何发展以及它们如何影响我们的职业生涯》，《管理学院评论》第 37 卷（2017 年）：523–53。

“one of the most useless questions” : Michelle Obama, Becoming (New York: Crown, 2018).

“最无用的问题之一”：米歇尔·奥巴马，《成为》（纽约：皇冠出版社，2018 年）。

lack the talent to pursue our callings : Shoshana R. Dobrow, “Dynamics of Callings: A Longitudinal Study of Musicians,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (2013): 431–52.

缺乏追求自身使命的才能：Shoshana R. Dobrow，“使命的动态：音乐家的纵向研究”，组织行为学杂志34（2013）：431-52。

leaving them unanswered : Justin M. Berg, Adam M. Grant, and Victoria Johnson, “When Callings Are Calling: Crafting Work and Leisure in Pursuit of Unanswered Occupational Callings,” Organization Science 21 (2010): 973–94.

未解答这些问题：Justin M. Berg、Adam M. Grant 和 Victoria Johnson，“当使命召唤时：为追寻未解答的职业使命而打造工作和休闲”，组织科学 21（2010 年）：973–94。

“Tell the kids” : Chris Rock, Tamborine , directed by Bo Burnham, Netflix, 2018.

“告诉孩子们”：克里斯·洛克，《Tamborine》，由博·伯纳姆执导，Netflix，2018 年。

introducing them to science differently : Ryan F. Lei et al., “Children Lose Confidence in Their Potential to ‘Be Scientists,’ but Not in Their Capacity to ‘Do Science,’” Developmental Science 22 (2019): e12837.

以不同的方式向他们介绍科学：Ryan F. Lei 等人，“孩子们对‘成为科学家’的潜力失去信心，但不会对他们‘做科学’的能力失去信心”，发展科学 22（2019）：e12837。

prekindergarten students express more interest : Marjorie Rhodes, Amanda Cardarelli, and Sarah-Jane Leslie, “Asking Young Children to ‘Do Science’ Instead of ‘Be Scientists’ Increases Science Engagement in a Randomized Field Experiment,” PNAS 117 (2020): 9808–14.

学龄前学生表现出更多兴趣：Marjorie Rhodes、Amanda Cardarelli 和 Sarah-Jane Leslie，“要求幼儿‘做科学’而不是‘成为科学家’可提高随机实地实验中的科学参与度”，PNAS 117 (2020): 9808–14。

holding a dozen different jobs : Alison Doyle, “How Often Do People Change Jobs during a Lifetime?,” The Balance Careers, June 15, 2020, www.thebalancecareers.com/how-often-do-people-change-jobs-2060467 .

从事十几种不同的工作：Alison Doyle，《人们一生中多久换一次工作？》，《The Balance Careers》，2020 年 6 月 15 日，www.thebalancecareers.com/how-often-do-people-change-jobs-2060467。

tuned out their mentors : Shoshana R. Dobrow and Jennifer Tosti-Kharas, “Listen to Your Heart? Calling and Receptivity to Career Advice,” Journal of Career Assessment 20 (2012): 264–80.

不听导师的意见：Shoshana R. Dobrow 和 Jennifer Tosti-Kharas，“倾听你的心声？职业建议的召唤和接受能力”，职业评估杂志 20（2012 年）：264-80。

we develop compensatory conviction : Ian McGregor et al., “Compensatory Conviction in the Face of Personal Uncertainty: Going to Extremes and Being Oneself,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (2001): 472–88.

我们形成了补偿性信念：Ian McGregor 等人，“面对个人不确定性的补偿性信念：走向极端和做自己”，人格与社会心理学杂志 80（2001）：472-88。

graduates of universities in England and Wales : Ofer Malamud, “Breadth Versus Depth: The Timing of Specialization in Higher Education,” Labour 24 (2010): 359–90.

英格兰和威尔士大学的毕业生：Ofer Malamud，“广度与深度：高等教育专业化的时机”，Labour 24（2010）：359-90。

as people consider career choices and transitions : Herminia Ibarra, Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003).

当人们考虑职业选择和转型时：Herminia Ibarra，《工作身份：重塑职业生涯的非传统策略》（波士顿：哈佛商学院出版社，2003 年）。

entertain possible selves : Herminia Ibarra, “Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation,” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1999): 764–91.

接纳可能的自我：Herminia Ibarra，“临时自我：在职业适应中尝试形象和身份”，《行政科学季刊》44（1999）：764-91。

the more people value happiness : Iris B. Mauss et al., “Can Seeking Happiness Make People Unhappy? Paradoxical Effects of Valuing Happiness,” Emotion 11 (2011): 807–15.

人们越重视幸福：Iris B. Mauss 等人，“追求幸福会让人不快乐吗？重视幸福的矛盾效应”，《情感》第 11 卷（2011 年）：807-15 页。

a risk factor for depression : Brett Q. Ford et al., “Desperately Seeking Happiness: Valuing Happiness Is Associated with Symptoms and Diagnosis of Depression,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 33 (2014): 890–905.

抑郁症的风险因素：Brett Q. Ford 等人，“拼命寻求幸福：重视幸福与抑郁症的症状和诊断有关”，社会与临床心理学杂志 33（2014）：890-905。

ruminate about why our lives aren’t more joyful : Lucy McGuirk et al., “Does a Culture of Happiness Increase Rumination Over Failure?,” Emotion 18 (2018): 755–64.

反思为什么我们的生活没有更加快乐：Lucy McGuirk 等人，“幸福文化是否会增加对失败的反思？”，情感 18（2018）：755–64。

happiness depends more on the frequency : Ed Diener, Ed Sandvik, and William Pavot, “Happiness Is the Frequency, Not the Intensity, of Positive versus Negative Affect,” in Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. Fritz Strack, Michael Argyle, and Norbert Schwartz (New York: Pergamon, 1991).

幸福更多地取决于频率：Ed Diener、Ed Sandvik 和 William Pavot，《幸福在于积极情感与消极情感的频率，而非强度》，载于《主观幸福感：跨学科视角》，Fritz Strack、Michael Argyle 和 Norbert Schwartz 编（纽约：Pergamon，1991 年）。

meaning is healthier than happiness : Barbara L. Fredrickson et al., “A Functional Genomic Perspective on Human Well-Being,” PNAS 110 (2013): 13684–89; Emily Esfahani Smith, “Meaning Is Healthier Than Happiness,” The Atlantic , August 1, 2013, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/meaning-is-healthier-than-happiness/278250 .

意义比幸福更健康：Barbara L. Fredrickson 等，“从功能基因组学角度看人类福祉”，PNAS 110（2013）：13684–89；Emily Esfahani Smith，“意义比幸福更健康”，《大西洋月刊》，2013 年 8 月 1 日，www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/meaning-is-healthier-than-happiness/278250。

meaning tends to last : Jon M. Jachimowicz et al., “Igniting Passion from Within: How Lay Beliefs Guide the Pursuit of Work Passion and Influence Turnover,” PsyArXiv 10.31234/ osf.io/qj6y9 , last revised July 2, 2018, https://psyarxiv.com/qj6y9/ .

意义往往会持久：Jon M. Jachimowicz 等人，“点燃内心的激情：世俗信仰如何引导对工作激情的追求和影响力的转变”，PsyArXiv 10.31234/osf.io/qj6y9，最后修订于 2018 年 7 月 2 日，https://psyarxiv.com/qj6y9/。

people prioritize social engagement : Brett Q. Ford et al., “Culture Shapes Whether the Pursuit of Happiness Predicts Higher or Lower Well-Being,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144 (2015): 1053–62.

人们优先考虑社会参与：Brett Q. Ford 等人，“文化决定追求幸福是否会预示着更高或更低的幸福感”，《实验心理学杂志：总论》144（2015）：1053–62。

“you’re still gonna be you on vacation” : Saturday Night Live , season 44, episode 19, “Adam Sandler,” May 4, 2019, NBC.

“度假时你还是你自己”：《周六夜现场》，第 44 季，第 19 集，“亚当·桑德勒”，2019 年 5 月 4 日，NBC。

joy that those choices bring about is typically temporary : Elizabeth W. Dunn, Timothy D. Wilson, and Daniel T. Gilbert, “Location, Location, Location: The Misprediction of Satisfaction in Housing Lotteries,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2003): 1421–32; Kent C. H. Lam et al., “Cultural Differences in Affective Forecasting: The Role of Focalism,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005): 1296–309.

这些选择所带来的快乐通常是暂时的：Elizabeth W. Dunn、Timothy D. Wilson 和 Daniel T. Gilbert，“位置，位置，位置：住房抽签中满意度的错误预测”，《人格与社会心理学公报》29（2003 年）：1421-32；Kent C. H. Lam 等人，“情感预测中的文化差异：焦点主义的作用”，《人格与社会心理学公报》31（2005 年）：1296-309。

“You can’t get away from yourself” : Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises (New York: Scribner, 1926/2014).

“你无法逃避自己”：欧内斯特·海明威，《太阳照常升起》（纽约：斯克里布纳出版社，1926/2014）。

students who changed their actions : Kennon M. Sheldon and Sonja Lyubomirsky, “Achieving Sustainable Gains in Happiness: Change Your Actions, Not Your Circumstances,” Journal of Happiness Studies 7 (2006): 55–86; Kennon M. Sheldon and Sonja Lyubomirsky, “Change Your Actions, Not Your Circumstances: An Experimental Test of the Sustainable Happiness Model,” in Happiness, Economics, and Politics: Towards a Multi-disciplinary Approach , ed. Amitava Krishna Dutt and Benjamin Radcliff (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2009).

改变自身行为的学生：Kennon M. Sheldon 和 Sonja Lyubomirsky，“实现可持续的幸福增长：改变你的行为，而不是你的环境”，《幸福研究杂志》7（2006 年）：55-86；Kennon M. Sheldon 和 Sonja Lyubomirsky，“改变你的行为，而不是你的环境：可持续幸福模型的实验测试”，《幸福、经济与政治：迈向多学科方法》，Amitava Krishna Dutt 和 Benjamin Radcliff 编辑（英国切尔滕纳姆：Edward Elgar，2009 年）。

built their own microcommunity : Jane E. Dutton and Belle Rose Ragins, Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2007).

建立了自己的微社区：Jane E. Dutton 和 Belle Rose Ragins，探索工作中的积极关系：建立理论和研究基础（新泽西州马瓦：Erlbaum，2007 年）。

passions are often developed, not discovered : Paul A. O’Keefe, Carol S. Dweck, and Gregory M. Walton, “Implicit Theories of Interest: Finding Your Passion or Developing It?,” Psychological Science 29 (2018): 1653–64.

激情通常是培养出来的，而不是发现出来的：Paul A. O’Keefe、Carol S. Dweck 和 Gregory M. Walton，“兴趣的内隐理论：发现你的激情还是培养它？”，心理科学 29（2018）：1653–64。

Their passion grew as they gained momentum : Michael M. Gielnik et al., “‘I Put in Effort, Therefore I Am Passionate’: Investigating the Path from Effort to Passion in Entrepreneurship,” Academy of Management Journal 58 (2015): 1012–31.

随着他们获得动力，他们的热情也与日俱增：Michael M. Gielnik 等人，“‘我付出努力，因此我充满热情’：探究创业中从努力到热情的道路”，《管理学院期刊》58（2015 年）：1012-1031。

actions that benefit others : Adam M. Grant, “The Significance of Task Significance: Job Performance Effects, Relational Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (2008): 108–24; Stephen E. Humphrey, Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson, “Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (2007): 1332–56; Brent D. Rosso, Kathryn H. Dekas, and Amy Wrzesniewski, “On the Meaning of Work: A Theoretical Integration and Review,” Research in Organizational Behavior 30 (2010): 91–127.

使他人受益的行为：Adam M. Grant，“任务重要性的意义：工作绩效影响、关系机制和边界条件”，《应用心理学杂志》93（2008）：108-24；Stephen E. Humphrey、Jennifer D. Nahrgang 和 Frederick P. Morgeson，“整合激励、社会和情境工作设计特征：工作设计文献的元分析总结和理论扩展”，《应用心理学杂志》92（2007）：1332-56；Brent D. Rosso、Kathryn H. Dekas 和 Amy Wrzesniewski，“论工作的意义：理论整合与回顾”，《组织行为学研究》30（2010）：91-127。

we feel we have more to give : Dan P. McAdams, “Generativity in Midlife,” Handbook of Midlife Development, ed. Margie E. Lachman (New York: Wiley, 2001).

我们觉得自己能付出的更多：Dan P. McAdams，《中年生殖力》，《中年发展手册》，Margie E. Lachman 编（纽约：Wiley，2001 年）。

“they find happiness by the way” : John Stuart Mill, Autobiography (New York: Penguin Classics, 1883/1990).

“他们顺便找到了幸福”：约翰·斯图尔特·密尔，自传（纽约：企鹅经典出版社，1883/1990）。

what scientists call open systems : Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (New York: Braziller, 1969).

科学家称之为开放系统：Ludwig von Bertalanffy，《一般系统理论：基础、发展和应用》（纽约：Braziller，1969 年）。

open systems are governed : Arie W. Kruglanski et al., “The Architecture of Goal Systems: Multifinality, Equifinality, and Counterfinality in Means-Ends Relations,” Advances in Motivation Science 2 (2015): 69–98; Dante Cicchetti and Fred A. Rogosch, “Equifinality and Multifinality in Developmental Psychopathology,” Development and Psychopathology 8 (1996): 597–600.

开放系统受到治理：Arie W. Kruglanski 等人，“目标系统的架构：手段-目的关系中的多重最终性、等效最终性和反最终性”，动机科学进展 2（2015）：69-98；Dante Cicchetti 和 Fred A. Rogosch，“发展精神病理学中的等效最终性和多重最终性”，发展与精神病理学 8（1996）：597-600。

“you can make the whole trip that way” : Nancy Groves, “EL Doctorow in Quotes: 15 of His Best,” Guardian, July 21, 2015, www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/22/el-doctorow-in-quotes-15-of-his-best .

“这样你就可以完成整个旅程”：南希·格罗夫斯，《EL 多克托罗名言：他的 15 句最佳语录》，《卫报》，2015 年 7 月 21 日，www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/22/el-doctorow-in-quotes-15-of-his-best。

rethink their roles through job crafting : Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton, “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work,” Academy of Management Review 26 (2001): 179–201.

通过工作重塑重新思考自己的角色：Amy Wrzesniewski 和 Jane E. Dutton，“重塑工作：将员工视为工作的积极重塑者”，《管理学院评论》第 26 卷（2001 年）：179-201 页。

how grateful they were for Candice Walker : Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton, “Having a Calling and Crafting a Job: The Case of Candice Billups,” William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan, November 12, 2009.

他们对坎迪斯·沃克的感激之情：艾米·沃泽斯涅夫斯基 (Amy Wrzesniewski) 和简·达顿 (Jane Dutton)，《拥有使命和打造工作：坎迪斯·比卢普斯的案例》，密歇根大学威廉·戴维森研究所，2009 年 11 月 12 日。

ended up rethinking their roles : Amy Wrzesniewski, Jane E. Dutton, and Gelaye Debebe, “Interpersonal Sensemaking and the Meaning of Work,” Research in Organizational Behavior 25 (2003): 93–135.

最终重新思考了自己的角色：Amy Wrzesniewski、Jane E. Dutton 和 Gelaye Debebe，“人际感知和工作的意义”，组织行为研究 25（2003）：93-135。

“No, it’s not part of my job” : “A World without Bosses,” WorkLife with Adam Grant , April 11, 2018.

“不，这不是我的工作”：“没有老板的世界”，亚当·格兰特的《职场生活》，2018 年 4 月 11 日。

Epilogue

结语

“‘What I believe’” : Candace Falk, Barry Pateman, and Jessica Moran, eds., Emma Goldman, vol. 2 , A Documentary History of the American Years (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2008).

“‘我的信仰’”：坎迪斯·福尔克 (Candace Falk)、巴里·帕特曼 (Barry Pateman) 和杰西卡·莫兰 (Jessica Moran) 编，《艾玛·戈德曼》第 2 卷，《美国岁月纪实史》（香槟：伊利诺伊大学出版社，2008 年）。

“write a book that ended with the word Mayonnaise” : Richard Brautigan, Trout Fishing in America (New York: Delta, 1967).

“写一本以“蛋黄酱”这个词结尾的书”：理查德·布劳提根，《美国钓鳟鱼》（纽约：三角洲，1967 年）。

“A new scientific truth” : Max K. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (New York: Greenwood, 1950/1968).

“新的科学真理”：马克斯·K·普朗克，《科学自传及其他论文》（纽约：格林伍德，1950/1968 年）。

generations are replaced : “Societies Change Their Minds Faster Than People Do,” Economist , October 31, 2019, www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/31/societies-change-their-minds-faster-than-people-do .

世代更替：“社会改变思想的速度比人们更快”，《经济学人》，2019 年 10 月 31 日，www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/10/31/societies-change-their-minds-faster-than-people-do。

the word scientist is relatively new : William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (New York: Johnson, 1840/1967); “William Whewell,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , December 23, 2000, last revised September 22, 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell .

“科学家”这个词相对较新：William Whewell，《归纳科学哲学》（纽约：约翰逊出版社，1840/1967）；“William Whewell”，斯坦福哲学百科全书，2000 年 12 月 23 日，最后修订于 2017 年 9 月 22 日，plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell。

“above all, try something” : Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Address at Oglethorpe University,” May 22, 1932, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-oglethorpe-university-atlanta-georgia .

“最重要的是，尝试一些事情”：富兰克林·D·罗斯福，《奥格尔索普大学演讲》，1932 年 5 月 22 日，www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-oglethorpe-university-atlanta-georgia。

“something unspecified is no better than nothing” : “Hoover and Roosevelt,” New York Times, May 24, 1932, www.nytimes.com/1932/05/24/archives/hoover-and-roosevelt.html .

“未指定的事情并不比没有好”：“胡佛和罗斯福”，《纽约时报》，1932 年 5 月 24 日，www.nytimes.com/1932/05/24/archives/hoover-and-roosevelt.html。

act of political stupidity : Paul Stephen Hudson, “A Call for ‘Bold Persistent Experimentation’: FDR’s Oglethorpe University Commencement Address, 1932,” Georgia Historical Quarterly (Summer 1994), https://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/history/related_article/progressive-era-world-war-ii-1901-1945/background-to-fdrs-ties-to-georgia/a-call-for-bold-persistent-experimentation-fdrs-oglethorpe-university-comme .

政治愚蠢行为：保罗·斯蒂芬·哈德森，《呼吁‘大胆坚持实验’：罗斯福 1932 年奥格尔索普大学毕业典礼演讲》，《佐治亚历史季刊》（1994 年夏季），https://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/history/related_article/progressive-era-world-war-ii-1901-1945/background-to-fdrs-ties-to-georgia/a-call-for-bold-persistent-experimentation-fdrs-oglethorpe-university-comme。

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

插图来源

Charts: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , and 34 by Matt Shirley.

图表：1、2、3、4、5、6、7、8、9、10、11、12、13、14、15、16、17、18、19、20、21、22、23、24、25、26、27、28、29、30、31、32、33 和 34，作者：Matt Shirley。

35 : Jason Adam Katzenstein/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast.

35：杰森·亚当·卡岑斯坦/《纽约客》收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast。

36 : Nicholas Bloom, Renata Lemos, Raffaella Sadun, Daniela Scur, and John Van Reenen. “JEEA-FBBVA Lecture 2013: The New Empirical Economics of Management,” Journal of the European Economic Association 12, no. 4 (August 1, 2014): 835–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12094 .

36：Nicholas Bloom、Renata Lemos、Raffaella Sadun、Daniela Scur 和 John Van Reenen。“2013 年 JEEA-FBBVA 讲座：管理学的新实证经济学”，《欧洲经济协会期刊》第 12 卷，第 4 期（2014 年 8 月 1 日）：835-76 页。https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12094。

37 : Zach Weinersmith/ www.smbc-comics.com .

37：扎克·韦纳史密斯/www.smbc-comics.com。

38 : C. Sanchez and D. Dunning. “Overconfidence Among Beginners: Is a Little Learning a Dangerous Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114, no. 1 (2018), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000102 .

38：C. Sanchez 和 D. Dunning。“初学者的过度自信：一知半解是危险的事吗？”，《人格与社会心理学杂志》114，第1期（2018），10-28页。https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000102。

39 , 40 , 41 : © Doug Savage, www.savagechickens.com .

39、40、41：© Doug Savage，www.savagechickens.com。

42 : Ellis Rosen/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast.

42：埃利斯·罗森/《纽约客》收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast。

43 : David Sipress/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast.

43：大卫·西普雷斯 / 《纽约客》收藏 / 卡通银行；© Condé Nast。

44 : CreateDebate user Loudacris/CC BY 3.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 .

44：CreateDebate 用户 Loudacris/CC BY 3.0。https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0。

45 : Map by casinoinsider.com.

45：地图由 casinoinsider.com 提供。

46 and 47 : wordle.net.

46 和 47：wordle.net。

50 : A. Leiserowitz, E. Maibach, S. Rosenthal, J. Kotcher, P. Bergquist, M. Ballew, M. Goldberg, and A. Gustafson. “Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2019.” Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2019.

50：A. Leiserowitz、E. Maibach、S. Rosenthal、J. Kotcher、P. Bergquist、M. Ballew、M. Goldberg 和 A. Gustafson。“美国人心目中的气候变化：2019 年 11 月”。耶鲁大学和乔治梅森大学。康涅狄格州纽黑文：耶鲁大学气候变化传播项目，2019 年。

51 : xkcd.com.

51：xkcd.com。

52 : Katharina Kugler.

52：卡塔琳娜·库格勒。

53 : © JimBenton.com.

53：© JimBenton.com。

54 : Steve Macone/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank; © Condé Nast.

54：史蒂夫·马科恩/《纽约客》收藏/卡通银行；© Condé Nast。

55 : www.CartoonCollections.com .

55：www.CartoonCollections.com。

57 : © Chris Madden.

57：© 克里斯·马登。

58 : Hayley Lewis, Sketchnote summary of A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure. © 2020 HALO Psychology Limited. Illustration drawn May 2020. London, United Kingdom. / Edmondson, A. C. (2011, April). From “Strategies for Learning from Failure,” Harvard Business Review . https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure . This illustration is protected by UK and International copyright laws. Reproduction and distribution of the illustration without prior written permission of the artist is prohibited.

58：海莉·刘易斯 (Hayley Lewis)，《失败原因谱系》速写笔记摘要。© 2020 HALO Psychology Limited。插图绘制于2020年5月，伦敦，英国。/ Edmondson, A. C. (2011年4月)。摘自《从失败中学习的策略》，《哈佛商业评论》。https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure。本插图受英国和国际版权法保护。未经艺术家事先书面许可，禁止复制和分发。

59 : Cartoon © by Guy Downes. For more information: www.officeguycartoons.com .

59：漫画 © Guy Downes 创作。更多信息请访问：www.officeguycartoons.com。

60 : Photo by Arthur Gebuys Photography/Shutterstock.

60：摄影：Arthur Gebuys Photography/Shutterstock。

61 : Saturday Night Live /NBC.

61：周六夜现场/NBC。

INDEX

指数

The page numbers in this index refer to the printed version of this book. The link provided will take you to the beginning of that print page. You may need to scroll forward from that location to find the corresponding reference on your e-reader.

本索引中的页码指的是本书的印刷版。提供的链接将带您到该印刷版页面的起始页。您可能需要从该位置向前滚动才能在电子阅读器上找到相应的参考资料。

Page numbers in italics refer to charts and illustrations.

斜体页码指的是图表和插图。

abortion, conversations on, 163 –64, 165 –66

堕胎，对话，163–64，165–66

active learning, 186 –88

主动学习，186–88

lectures vs., 190 –93, 196

讲座与，190–93，196

addiction:

瘾：

motivational interviewing as tool for combating, 149

动机访谈作为对抗的工具，149

as reinforced by failed arguments against, 146

反对的失败论据也证实了这一点，146

agreeableness, 81 –82

宜人性，81–82

as barrier to rethinking, 83

作为重新思考的障碍，83

social harmony vs. cognitive consensus in, 89

社会和谐与认知共识，89

see also disagreeable people

另见令人不快的人

Albert, Robert, 80 –81

阿尔伯特，罗伯特，80–81

Allen, Grant, 185

艾伦·格兰特，185

Amazon, 218 , 219

亚马逊，218，219

amygdala, and attacks on core beliefs, 60

杏仁核和对核心信念的攻击，60

animosity, stereotypes and, 127

敌意、刻板印象和 127

Anton, Gabriel, 33 –34

安东·加布里埃尔，33–34

Anton’s syndrome, 33 –35

安东综合征，33–35

Apple, iPhone introduced by, 29 –31

苹果，iPhone 的发布时间，29–31

approval, desire for, politician mindset and, 18 –19, 21 , 22 , 22 , 28 , 80 , 233

赞同、渴望、政治家心态和，18–19、21、22、22、28、80、233

Arbery, Ahmaud, 10

阿伯里·艾哈迈德，10岁

arguments:

参数：

hierarchy of, 114 , 114

层次结构，114，114

prosecutor mindset and, 18 , 19 , 26 , 233

检察官心态和，18，19，26，233

see also debates

另见辩论

Aristotle, 247 –48

亚里士多德，247–48

armchair quarterback syndrome, 37

扶手椅四分卫综合症，37

as barrier to rethinking, 42

作为重新思考的障碍，42

impostor syndrome vs., 51

冒名顶替综合症 vs.，51

Arnold, Karen, 195

阿诺德，卡伦，195

arrogance, 54

傲慢，54

humility vs., 45

谦逊 vs.，45

Ashby, Jeff, 129

阿什比，杰夫，129

Asimov, Isaac, 59

阿西莫夫，艾萨克，59岁

assumptions, 8 , 9 –12

假设，8，9-12

active questioning of, 25

主动询问，25

learning to rethink, 18

学会重新思考，18

astrological signs, stereotyping and, 137 –39

星座、刻板印象和 137–39

astronauts, overview effect and, 128 –29

宇航员、总观效应和，128–29

attachment, to erroneous ideas, 62

执着于错误观念，62

Austin (first grader), 201 –2

奥斯汀（一年级学生），201-2

autism, vaccination mistakenly linked to, 144 , 158 –59

自闭症，疫苗接种被错误地与自闭症有关，144，158–59

awestruck effect, 192

令人敬畏的效果，192

Barsade, Sigal, 89

巴萨德，西格尔，89岁

Battier, Shane, 131

肖恩·巴蒂尔，131

Beethoven, Ludwig van, 114 –15

贝多芬，路德维希·凡·114–15

beliefs and opinions, 26

信仰和观点，26

attachment to, 62

依恋，62

attacks on, as threats to sense of self, 59 –60, 63 –64, 127

攻击，作为对自我意识的威胁，59–60，63–64，127

biases and, see biases

偏见，参见偏见

blind spots in, 75

盲点，75

calcification of, 4 , 10 , 17

钙化，4，10，17

challenges to, as opportunities for rethinking, 74 , 75 –76

挑战，也是重新思考的机会，74，75–76

convincing others to rethink, 97 –160

说服他人重新思考，97–160

core values vs., 64 , 66 n, 251

核心价值观 vs., 64, 66n, 251

counterfactual thinking and, 137 –39

反事实思维，137–39

debates about, see debates

关于辩论，请参阅辩论

detaching sense of self from, 12 , 62 –64, 69 –70, 74 , 76 , 251 –52

脱离自我意识，12、62–64、69–70、74、76、251–52

erroneous, see erroneous thinking

错误，见错误思维

evidence vs., 24 –25, 48 , 73

证据对比，24–25，48，73

evolution of, 26 , 58

进化，26，58

freedom of choice in, 60 , 148 , 255

选择自由，60，148，255

Murray’s experiment on, 55 –58, 60 , 74 –75

Murray 的实验，55–58, 60, 74–75

need for rethinking of, 12 , 17 , 18 , 24 , 55 –76, 243

需要重新思考，12、17、18、24、55-76、243

overconfidence and, 44

过度自信，44

politician mindset in, see politician mindset

政治家心态，请参阅政治家心态

preacher mindset in, see preacher mindset

传教士心态，参见传教士心态

prosecutor mindset in, see prosecutor mindset

检察官心态，参见检察官心态

as reinforced by failed arguments against, 144 –45

反对的失败论据也证实了这一点，144–45

scientist mindset in, see scientist mindset

科学家心态，参见科学家心态

second opinions and, 18 , 52

第二意见，18，52

staying true to, 16

坚持，16

weakly held, 59 , 116 –17

弱持有，59，116-17

Benchley, Robert, 165

本奇利，罗伯特，165

Berger, Ron, 198 –203, 246

伯杰，罗恩，198–203，246

best practices, process accountability vs., 216 –19, 256

最佳实践、流程问责制与……，216–19，256

Beugoms, Jean-Pierre, 65 –66

让·皮埃尔·博贡（Jean-Pierre Beugoms），65–66 岁

election forecasting by, 66 –67, 69 –71, 70 , 71 , 72 –73

选举预测，66–67、69–71、70、71、72–73

and joy of being wrong, 70 , 71 –72

以及犯错的喜悦，70，71-72

scientist mindset of, 66 –67

科学家的心态，66–67

Bezos, Jeff, 72 , 219

杰夫·贝佐斯，72岁，219

Bhutan, Gross National Happiness index of, 237

不丹，国民幸福指数为237

biases:

偏见：

binary, 165 –66, 169 , 181

二进制，165–66, 169, 181

confirmation, 25 , 174 n, 252

确认，25，174n，252

denial of, 25

否认，25

desirability, 25 , 168 , 173 , 174 n

可取性，25，168，173，174n

status quo, 194 n

现状，194n

Bigombe, Betty, in Uganda peace talks, 155 –57, 159

贝蒂·比贡贝 (Bigombe)，在乌干达和平谈判中，155–57, 159

binary bias, 165 –66, 169 , 181

二元偏见，165–66，169，181

Bird, Brad, 83 , 87 –88, 89

伯德，布拉德，83，87-88，89

BlackBerry, 16 , 23 , 29 , 31

黑莓，16，23，29，31

Black Lives Matter movement, 10

黑人的命也是命运动，10

Blakely, Sara, 47

布莱克利，萨拉，47岁

blindness, patients’ denial of, 33 –35

失明、患者否认、33–35

blind spots, mental, 60

精神盲点，60

as barrier to rethinking, 35

作为重新思考的障碍，35

confidence and, 41 , 45

信心和，41，45

recognition of, 54

承认，54

self-awareness and, 48

自我意识，48

blirtatiousness, 226 –27

轻浮，226–27

Boodman, Eric, 148

埃里克·布德曼，148

Boston Red Sox, Yankees’ rivalry with, 122 –24, 126 –27, 128 , 133 –36

波士顿红袜队，洋基队的对手，122–24，126–27，128，133–36

brain, reward centers in, 123

大脑，奖励中心，123

Brautigan, Richard, 245 n

布劳提根，理查德，245n

Breuhaus, Rachel, 111

Breuhaus，Rachel，111

Brexit, 66 , 69

英国脱欧，66，69

business, motivational interviewing in, 151 –53

商业，动机访谈，151–53

career choices, 225 –43

职业选择，225–43

as actions vs. identities, 230

作为行动与身份，230

author and, 225 –26

作者和，225–26

escalation of commitment in, 229 –30

承诺升级，229–30

of Ryan Grant, 226 –28, 230 , 241

Ryan Grant 著，226–28、230、241

identity foreclosure and, 230 , 242

身份丧失抵押品赎回权，以及 230、242

overthinking and, 235 n

过度思考，235n

periodic checkups on, 233 –35

定期检查，233–35

rethinking, 228 , 230 , 242 –43

重新思考，228，230，242–43

scientist mindset and, 235

科学家心态，235

“what do you want to be” question and, 225 –26, 230 , 231 , 232

“你想成为什么”的问题，225–26，230，231，232

see also life plans

另请参阅人生计划

Cassidy, Chris, 205 –7

卡西迪，克里斯，205–7

caveats, 173 –74, 176 , 255

注意事项，173–74, 176, 255

Cavett, Dick, 143

卡维特，迪克，143

Central Park bird-watching incident, 181 –83

中央公园观鸟事件，181–83

challenge networks, 83 –84, 200 , 218 , 253

挑战网络，83–84，200，218，253

author’s use of, 86 –87, 246

作者的使用，86–87，246

corporate cultures and, 86

企业文化和 86

Pixar’s use of, 83 –84

皮克斯使用 83–84

shared values in, 84 n

共同价值观，84n

Wright brothers as, 89 –90

莱特兄弟，89–90

Challenger space shuttle disaster, 207

挑战者号航天飞机失事，207

change, continuity and, 31

变化、连续性和 31

change talk, in motivational interviewing, 152 –53

改变谈话，动机访谈，152–53

charged conversations, 163 –83

充满激情的对话，163–83

binary bias and, 165 , 166

二元偏见和，165，166

complexification in, 165 –66, 167 –68, 255

复杂化, 165–66, 167–68, 255

emotions in, 179 –83, 179 , 255

情绪，179–83，179，255

idea cults and, 176 –77

思想崇拜和，176–77

nuance in, 168 , 171 , 174 , 176 , 183

细微差别，168，171，174，176，183

perspective-taking vs. perspective-seeking in, 178

观点采择与观点寻求，178

productive vs. unproductive, 179 –80, 179 , 180

富有成效与不富有成效，179–80，179，180

scientist mindset in, 183

科学家心态，183

Chatman, Jennifer, 89

詹妮弗·查特曼，89岁

children, see kids

孩子们，看看孩子们

choice, freedom of, 148 , 255

选择，自由，148，255

climate change, beliefs about:

气候变化，关于以下方面的信念：

binary bias and, 169

二元偏见和 169

complexity and, 172 –73

复杂性，172–73

desirability bias and, 168

期望偏差，以及 168

media and, 170 –73

媒体和，170–73

preacher mindset and, 168

传教士心态，168

skepticism vs. denial in, 169

怀疑论与否认论，169

spectrum of, 169 –70, 170

光谱，169–70, 170

in U.S., 167 , 168

在美国，167，168

climate deniers, 169

气候否认者，169

Clinton, Hillary, in 2016 election, 69 , 71

克林顿、希拉里（2016 年大选），69 岁，71 岁

cognitive ability, emotional intelligence vs., 175 –76

认知能力、情商与……，175–76

cognitive flexibility, see mental flexibility

认知灵活性，参见心理灵活性

cognitive laziness, 7 –8

认知懒惰，7-8

as barrier to rethinking, 4

作为重新思考的障碍，4

Coleman, Peter T., 163 –64, 179

科尔曼，彼得·T.，163–64，179

collective rethinking, 11 , 161 –222, 255 –57

集体反思，11，161–222，255–57

Columbia space shuttle disaster, 207 , 210 –11, 220

哥伦比亚号航天飞机灾难，207，210-11，220

Columbia University, 163

哥伦比亚大学，163

commitment, escalation of, 229 –30

承诺，升级，229–30

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, 169 –70

怀疑论调查委员会，169–70

common ground, search for, 104 –5, 107 , 108 –9, 254

共同点, 寻找, 104–5, 107, 108–9, 254

common identity, 129

共同身份，129

competence:

权限：

confidence vs., 33 –54, 39 , 43 , 44 , 48 –49, 49 , 252

信心与，33–54, 39, 43, 44, 48–49, 49, 252

humility and, 215 n

谦逊和，215n

complexification, 199

复杂性，199

caveats and contingencies in, 173 –74, 176 , 255

警告和意外情况，173–74，176，255

in charged conversations, 165 –67, 255

在激烈的对话中，165–67，255

media and, 171 –73

媒体和，171–73

as signal of credibility, 171 , 174

作为可信度的信号，171，174

conclusions:

结论：

author’s view of, 245 –46

作者的观点，245–46

in fiction, 245

在小说中，245

confidence, 46 –48

信心，46–48

in capacity to learn, 48 , 252

学习能力，48，252

competence vs., 33 –54, 39 , 43 , 44 , 48 –49, 49 , 252

能力 vs.，33–54，39，43，44，48–49，49，252

humility and, see confident humility

谦逊，并看到自信的谦逊

ignorance and, 33 , 40 –41, 42 –46, 43 , 44

无知，33、40-41、42-46、43、44

as measure of faith in self, 46 –47, 47 , 49 , 53

作为自我信心的衡量标准，46–47, 47, 49, 53

mental blindness and, 41 , 45

精神盲目，41，45

另见“扶手椅四分卫综合症”；“冒名顶替综合症”

confident humility, 46 –48, 47 , 49 , 52 –54, 67 , 72 n, 112 , 116 –19, 215 , 249

自信的谦逊，46–48, 47, 49, 52–54, 67, 72n, 112, 116–19, 215, 249

in motivational interviewing, 147 , 157

在动机访谈中，147，157

confirmation bias, 25 , 28 , 29 , 174 n, 252

确认偏差，25，28，29，174n，252

conflict:

冲突：

avoidance of, 81 –82

避免，81–82

constructive, 77 –93, 253

建设性的，77–93，253

as energizing for disagreeable people, 82 , 84

为不愉快的人提供能量，82，84

in families, 80 –81

在家庭中，80–81

in low-performing vs. high-performing groups, 78 –80, 79

低绩效群体与高绩效群体，78–80, 79

另请参阅关系冲突；任务冲突

conformity, group polarization and, 127 –28

从众、群体极化和 127–28

confusion, in learning process, 199 , 255 , 256

学习过程中的困惑，199，255，256

constructive conflict, 77 –93, 253

建设性冲突，77–93，253

contingencies, 174 , 176 , 255

意外事件，174，176，255

continuity, change and, 31

连续性、变化和 31

Cooper, Christian, 181 –82

库珀，克里斯蒂安，181–82

core values, 55 –56

核心价值观，55–56

beliefs vs., 64 , 66 n, 251

信仰与，64，66n，251

coronavirus pandemic, 248 , 249

冠状病毒大流行，248，249

rethinking assumptions in, 9 –10

重新思考假设，9-10

Costanza, George (char.), 68 , 118

康斯坦萨，乔治（角色），68，118

counterfactual thinking:

反事实思维：

beliefs and, 137 –39

信仰和，137–39

destabilizing stereotypes with, 134 –40

打破刻板印象，134–40

Coutifaris, Constantinos, 213

库蒂法里斯，康斯坦丁诺斯，213

craft, mastery of, 198

技艺，精通，198

Crane, Frasier (char.), 55

克兰·弗雷泽（角色），55岁

crises, reversion to learned responses in, 5 –7

危机，回归学习反应，5-7

criticism, reception to, 87 n

批评，接受，87n

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 27

Csikszentmihalyi，Mihaly，27岁

Cuomo, Andrew, 249

安德鲁·库莫，249

curiosity, 27 –28, 59 , 67 , 92 , 102 , 105 , 106 , 115 , 117 , 137 , 140 , 145 , 147 , 156 –59, 165 , 174 , 180 , 188 , 197 , 199 , 200 , 203 , 211 , 214 , 221 , 251 , 255

好奇心, 27–28, 59, 67, 92, 102, 105, 106, 115, 117, 137, 140, 145, 147, 156–59, 165, 174, 180, 188, 197, 199, 200, 203, 211, 214, 221, 251, 255

in motivational interviewing, 147 , 157

在动机访谈中，147，157

Dalio, Ray, 63

达利欧·雷 63岁

Darwin, Charles, 33

查尔斯·达尔文 33岁

Davis, Daryl, in encounters with white supremacists, 121 –22, 139 –41, 151

达里尔·戴维斯（Daryl Davis）与白人至上主义者的遭遇，121–22，139–41，151

Davis, Murray, 59

戴维斯·默里，59岁

Dear Penn Freshmen (website), 197

致宾大新生（网站），197

debates, 97 –119

辩论，97-119

adversarial approach to, 102 –3, 107

对抗性方法，102–3，107

brick walls in, 116

砖墙，116

confident humility in, 116 –17

自信谦卑，116–17

curiosity in, 117

好奇心，117

disagreements reframed as, 91 –92

分歧重新表述为，91–92

focusing on key points in, 109 –11, 254

重点关注，109–11，254

as negotiations, 104

作为谈判，104

nuance in, 117

细微差别，117

politician mindset, 107 –8

政治家心态，107–8

preacher mindset, 110

传教士心态，110

prosecutor mindset, 110

检察官心态，110

question-based approach in, 112 –13

基于问题的方法，112–13

responses to hostility in, 113 –16

应对敌意，113–16

scientist mindset in, 102 –6, 107 , 108 –9

科学家心态，102–6，107，108–9

search for common ground in, 107 , 108 –9, 254

寻找共同点，107，108-9，254

defend-attack spirals, 105 , 109

防御-攻击螺旋，105，109

deniers, skeptics vs., 169

否认者、怀疑论者 vs. 169

desirability bias, 25 , 28 , 29 , 71 , 168 , 173 , 174 n

期望偏差，25，28，29，71，168，173，174n

detachment:

分离：

of opinions from identity, 62 , 69 –70, 76

身份认同的观点，62，69–70，76

of past from present sense of self, 62 –63, 69 , 76 , 251

过去与现在的自我意识，62–63，69，76，251

Difficult Conversations Lab, 163 –64, 179

困难对话实验室，163–64，179

disagreeable people:

令人不快的人：

conflict as energizing for, 82 , 84

冲突激发活力，82，84

as good critics, 86 –87

作为好的批评家，86–87

task conflict and, 83 , 84

任务冲突和 83, 84

task conflict encouraged by, 90

任务冲突鼓励，90

see also pirates

另见海盗

discovery, joy of, 69 , 188 , 198 , 203

发现的喜悦，69，188，198，203

Disney, 85

迪士尼，85岁

Doctorow, E. L., 242

多克托罗，E. L.，242

Dodge, Wagner, 1 –2, 5 –6, 8 , 11

道奇，瓦格纳，1–2，5–6，8，11

doubt, 4 , 28 , 30 –31, 45 , 65 , 67 , 92 , 165 , 208 , 211 , 221 , 234 , 243 , 250

疑问, 4, 28, 30–31, 45, 65, 67, 92, 165, 208, 211, 221, 234, 243, 250

benefits of, 47 –49, 52 , 54 , 80 , 250

好处，47–49，52，54，80，250

debilitating effect of, 46 –47, 52 –53

衰弱的影响，46–47，52–53

in rethinking cycles, 27 , 45 , 67 , 83 , 92 , 112 –13, 137 , 140 , 147 , 158 , 165 , 171 , 187 , 188 , 208 , 234 , 261

在反思周期中，27、45、67、83、92、112–13、137、140、147、158、165、171、187、188、208、234、261

see also confident humility ; self-doubt

另请参阅自信的谦逊；自我怀疑

drafts and revisions, in learning process, 199 –203, 256

草稿和修订，学习过程中，199–203，256

Duke University, UNC rivalry with, 131

杜克大学与北卡罗来纳大学的竞争，131

dumbstruck effect, 192

目瞪口呆效应，192

Dunning, David, 38 , 40 , 44 , 158

邓宁，大卫，38，40，44，158

Dunning-Kruger effect, 38 –39, 40 –41, 42 n, 43 , 52 , 53 , 252

邓宁-克鲁格效应，38–39，40–41，42n，43，52，53，252

Durant, Kevin, 124 n

杜兰特，凯文，124n

Dutton, Jane, 242

达顿，简，242

Earth, as seen from space, 128 –29

从太空看地球，128–29

echo chambers, 61 , 164 , 252

回音室，61，164，252

Edmondson, Amy, 208 –9, 217 –18

埃德蒙森，艾米，208–9，217–18

education:

教育：

entrenched beliefs in, 17

根深蒂固的信念，17

teaching students to question knowledge, 185 –203

教导学生质疑知识，185–203

see also learning ; teachers, teaching

另请参阅学习；教师，教学

Einstein, Albert, 22

爱因斯坦，阿尔伯特，22岁

elections, U.S., of 2016, 66 –67, 69 –71, 70 , 71 , 164

2016 年美国大选，66–67、69–71、70、71、164

EL Education, 201 –2

EL教育，201-2

emotional intelligence:

情商：

cognitive ability vs., 175 –76

认知能力与，175–76

overestimating, 42

高估，42

emotions, 24 , 59 , 63 , 69 , 75 , 78

情绪, 24, 59, 63, 69, 75, 78

binary bias in, 180

二进制偏差，180

in charged conversations, 179 –83, 179 , 255

在激烈的对话中，179–83, 179, 255

mixed, 180 –81

混合，180–81

as works in progress, 180 , 255

正在进行的工作，180，255

England, career choices in, 233 n

英国，职业选择，233n

entrepreneurship:

创业：

decisiveness as overvalued in, 21 –22

果断性被高估，21–22

scientist mindset and, 20 –22, 21 , 251

科学家心态，20–22, 21, 251

erroneous thinking, 55 –76

错误思维，55–76

attachment to, 62

依恋，62

echo chambers and filter bubbles in, 61 , 164 , 252

回音室和过滤气泡，61，164，252

joy of acknowledging, 61 –62, 65 –66, 69 , 70 , 71 –72, 89 , 252

承认的喜悦，61–62, 65–66, 69, 70, 71–72, 89, 252

escalation of commitment, 229 –30

承诺升级，229-30

Étienne-Rousseau, Marie-Hélène, 143 , 145 , 147 –48, 155 , 158 –59

艾蒂安-卢梭，玛丽-海伦，143, 145, 147–48, 155, 158–59

Étienne-Rousseau, Tobie, 143 , 145 , 147 –48, 155

艾蒂安-卢梭，托比，143, 145, 147–48, 155

Eversley, Karina, 206

埃弗斯利，卡琳娜，206

excellence, ethic of, 198 , 200

卓越，道德，198，200

experience, expertise vs., 43 –44

经验、专业知识 vs. 43–44

experience machine, 194

体验机，194

expertise, experience vs., 43 –44

专业知识、经验 vs. 43–44

experts, questioning judgment of, 18

专家质疑18的判断

Facebook, precursor to, 8

Facebook，前身，8

fallibility, acceptance of, 59

可错性，接受，59

feedback, 86 , 212 –13, 256

反馈，86，212–13，256

Feynman, Richard, 59

费曼，理查德，59岁

fiction, conclusion in, 245

小说，结论，245

fight-or-flight response, 60

战斗或逃跑反应，60

filter bubbles, 61 , 164 , 252

过滤气泡，61，164，252

Floyd, George, 10

弗洛伊德，乔治，10岁

forecasting, accuracy of, 65 –73

预测准确度，65–73

rethinking and, 67 –68, 248

重新思考，67–68，248

forecasting tournaments, 65 , 73

预测锦标赛，65，73

Forster, E. M., 158

福斯特，E.M.，158

Fragale, Alison, 131

弗拉盖尔，艾莉森，131

Gagneur, Arnaud, 148 –49, 155 , 158 –59

阿诺·加格尼尔，148–49, 155, 158–59

Gates, Bill, 212

盖茨，比尔，212

Gates, Melinda, 212

盖茨，梅琳达，212

Mean Reviews video and, 214 –15

平均评论视频和，214–15

Gates Foundation, 208

盖茨基金会，208

Mean Reviews video at, 214 –15

平均评论视频，214–15

psychological safety at, 212 –13, 214 –15

心理安全，212–13，214–15

Give and Take (Grant), 62 n

给予和索取（格兰特），62n

givers, success rate of, 61 , 62 n

给予者，成功率，61，62n

Goldman, Emma, 245

戈德曼，艾玛，245

Goleman, Daniel, 175

戈尔曼，丹尼尔，175

Good Judgment, 65

良好的判断力，65

Goodwin, Doris Kearns, 121

古德温，多丽丝·卡恩斯，121

Google, 209

谷歌，209

Gore, Al, 167 , 168 –69

戈尔，Al，167，168–69

Graf, Steffi, 124 n

格拉芙，施特菲，124n

Graham, Paul, 114

格雷厄姆·保罗，114

Grant, Adam (author):

格兰特·亚当（作者）：

agreeableness trait of, 81 –82, 89

宜人性特质，81–82，89

approach to debate, 103 –4, 113 –15

辩论方式，103–4，113–15

career choices and, 225 –26

职业选择，225–26

challenge network of, 86 –87

挑战网络，86–87

complexifying conversations, 174 –77

使对话复杂化，174–77

family background of, 226

家庭背景，226

and joy of being wrong, 62 , 89

以及犯错的喜悦，62，89

motivational interviewing and, 151 –53

动机访谈，151–53

online social network and, 8 –9

在线社交网络和 8–9

questioning stereotypes, 137 –38

质疑刻板印象，137–38

as teacher, 195 –98

作为老师，195–98

Grant, Ryan, medical career of, 226 –28, 230 , 241 –42

Grant，Ryan，医学生涯，226–28，230，241–42

Great Depression, 249

大萧条，249

greatness, of composers, 114 –15

作曲家的伟大，114–15

Greenspan, Stephen, 18 , 19

斯蒂芬·格林斯潘，18岁，19岁

Grindle, Nicole, 88 –89

格林德尔，妮可，88–89

grit, 229 –30

勇气，229–30

group polarization:

群体极化：

conformity and, 128

一致性和，128

stereotypes and, 127 –28

刻板印象，127–28

groups:

组：

contact between, 139

之间的联系，139

stereotypes and, 139

刻板印象，以及 139

gun control, 164

枪支管制，164

habits, 8 , 9

习惯，8，9

cognitive laziness and, 7 –8

认知懒惰，7-8

Handey, Jack, 225

汉迪，杰克，225

Hansen, Chris, 207 , 211

汉森，克里斯，207，211

Hansen, Michele, 117 –18

汉森，米歇尔，117–18

happiness, pursuit of, 237 –38

幸福，追求，237–38

environment and, 238 –40

环境和，238–40

meaning vs., 238 , 240 –41

意义 vs.，238，240-41

Hemingway, Ernest, 87 , 239

海明威，欧内斯特，87，239

Holocaust deniers, 189 –90

大屠杀否认者，189–90

Holocaust survivors, 130 , 132 , 189 –90

大屠杀幸存者，130，132，189–90

hostility, responses to, 113 –16

敌意，回应，113–16

hot dog sandwich survey, 125 , 125

热狗三明治调查，125，125

humility, 27 , 45 –48, 52 –54, 106 , 112 , 117 , 119 , 137 , 147 , 157 –58, 165 , 200 , 214 –15, 221 , 234 , 243 , 249 –50, 256

谦卑，27、45–48、52–54、106、112、117、119、137、147、157–58、165、200、214–15、221、234、243、249–50、256

competence and, 215 n

能力和，215n

as groundedness, 46 –48

作为根基，46–48

intellectual, see intellectual humility

知识分子，参见知识分子的谦逊

self-doubt vs., 46

自我怀疑 vs. 46

see also confident humility

另见自信谦逊

hypotheses, testing of, 20 , 21 , 23

假设，检验，20，21，23

Ibarra, Herminia, 235

伊瓦拉，埃米尼亚，235

IBM, Project Debater of, 97 –102, 107 –10

IBM，《辩论项目》，97–102，107–10

Iceland, 2008 financial crisis in, 35 –36

冰岛，2008 年金融危机，35–36

idea cults, 176 –77

理念崇拜，176–77

identity, see self, sense of

身份认同、自我认知、

identity foreclosure, 230 , 232 –33, 234 , 242

身份丧失，230，232-33，234，242

ideology, see beliefs

意识形态，参见信仰

ignorance, confidence and, 33 , 40 –41, 42 –46, 43 , 44

无知、自信和33、40-41、42-46、43、44

Ig™ Nobel Prize, 38

搞笑诺贝尔奖，38

impostor syndrome, 36 , 37 –38, 49 –51

冒名顶替综合症，36、37-38、49-51

armchair quarterback syndrome vs., 51

扶手椅四分卫综合症 vs.，51

gender and, 51 n

性别和，51n

in high achievers, 50

在高成就者中，50

possible benefits of, 50 –54

可能的好处，50–54

Inconvenient Truth, An (film), 167

《难以忽视的真相》（电影），167

Incredibles, The (film), 83 , 84 , 87 –88

超人总动员（电影），83、84、87–88

influencing, defense mechanisms against, 154 –55, 154

影响，防御机制，154–55，154

influencing, listening and, 155 –60

影响、倾听和 155–60

information, see knowledge

信息，参见知识

instincts, 8 , 9

本能，8，9

integrity, passion as sign of, 179

正直、热情是179的标志

intellectual humility, 27 –28, 31 , 45 –48, 52 –54, 62 , 102 , 106 , 112 , 117 , 119 , 137 , 147 , 157 –58, 165 , 187 , 200 , 203 , 214 –15, 221 , 249 –50, 253

知识谦逊，27–28, 31, 45–48, 52–54, 62, 102, 106, 112, 117, 119, 137, 147, 157–58, 165, 187, 200, 203, 214–15, 221, 249–50, 253

arrogance vs., 45

傲慢与……45

International Space Station, 205 –7

国际空间站，205-7

internet:

互联网：

misinformation on, 164

错误信息，164

simplification and, 171

简化和 171

interpersonal rethinking, 10 –11, 95 –160, 253 –55

人际反思，10–11，95–160，253–55

interviewing, motivational, see motivational interviewing

访谈，激励，参见动机访谈

iPhone, 23

iPhone，23

Jobs’s resistance to, 29 –31

乔布斯的抵制，29-31

iPod, 30

iPod，30

IQ scores:

智商分数：

emotional intelligence and, 175

情商和，175

mental flexibility vs., 24 –27

心理灵活性 vs.，24–27

stereotyping and, 24 –25

刻板印象，24–25

Israel-Palestine conflict, 131

以色列-巴勒斯坦冲突，131

stereotyping in, 130

刻板印象，130

Jeff (biotech CEO), 151 –53, 155

Jeff（生物技术CEO），151–53, 155

Jehn, Karen “Etty,” 78

Jehn，Karen“Etty”，78

Jimmy Kimmel Live! (TV show), 214

吉米·坎摩尔秀（电视节目），214

Jobs, Steve, iPhone resisted by, 29 –31

乔布斯、史蒂夫、iPhone 遭到抵制，29–31

Johnson Space Center, 221

约翰逊航天中心，221

joy of being wrong, 61 –62, 65 –66, 69 , 70 , 71 –72, 89 , 252

犯错的喜悦，61–62, 65–66, 69, 70, 71–72, 89, 252

judging, of self vs. work, 201

自我与工作的评判，201

Kaczynski, Ted, 60 , 74 –75

卡辛斯基，泰德，60，74–75

Kahneman, Daniel:

卡尼曼，丹尼尔：

and joy of being wrong, 61 –62

以及犯错的喜悦，61–62

scientist mindset of, 62

科学家的心态，62

Kelemen, Deborah, 188 –89

凯勒门，黛博拉，188–89

Kelly, George, 127

凯利，乔治，127

Kelman, Herb, 130 , 131

凯尔曼，赫伯，130，131

Kendi, Ibram X., 182

肯迪，伊布拉姆 X.，182

kids:

孩子们：

encouraging rethinking by, 256 ; see also teachers, teaching

鼓励反思，256；另见教师、教学

unlearning and, 189 –90, 256

忘却学习，189–90，256

“what do you want to be” question and, 225 –26, 230 , 231 , 232

“你想成为什么”的问题，225–26，230，231，232

knowledge:

知识：

exponential expansion of, 17

指数扩展，17

oral transmission of, 247

口头传播，247

overconfidence and, 92 –93

过度自信，92–93

of what we don’t know, see intellectual humility

对于我们不知道的事情，要看到知识的谦逊

Knowlton, Karren, 130 –31

Knowlton，Carts，130–31

Kolbert, Elizabeth, 60

伊丽莎白·科尔伯特，60岁

Kony, Joseph, 157

科尼，约瑟夫，157

Bigombe’s meetings with, 155 –56

Bigombe 与……的会面，155–56

Kreider, Tim, 97

克雷德，蒂姆，97岁

Kruger, Justin, 38 , 158

克鲁格，贾斯汀，38岁，158岁

Krumrei Mancuso, Elizabeth, 52

克鲁姆雷·曼库索，伊丽莎白，52 岁

Ku Klux Klan, 121 –22, 139 –41, 151

三K党, 121–22, 139–41, 151

Kundro, Tim, 126 , 129 –30, 131 , 133

蒂姆·昆卓，126、129–30、131、133

Lazaridis, Mike, 31

拉扎里迪斯，迈克，31岁

in failure to rethink marketplace, 23 –24

未能重新思考市场，23–24

as science prodigy, 15 –16, 23

作为科学天才，15-16，23

as smartphone pioneer, 16 , 23

作为智能手机先驱，16、23

as victim of overconfidence cycle, 29

作为过度自信周期的受害者，29

leaders, rethinking by, 248 –50

领导者的反思，248–50

learning:

学习：

capacity for, confidence in, 48 , 252

能力，信心，48，252

challenge networks in, 200

挑战网络，200

confusion in, 199 , 255 , 256

混淆，199，255，256

inquiry-based, see active learning

探究式学习，参见主动学习

scientist mindset in, 186

科学家心态，186

textbooks and, 185 –87

教科书和，185–87

see also lifelong learning

另见终身学习

learning cultures:

学习文化：

“how do you know” questions in, 211 –12

“你怎么知道”的问题，211-12

in organizations, 205 –22, 256 –57

在组织中，205–22，256–57

performance cultures vs., 209

绩效文化 vs. 209

psychological safety in, 209 , 212 –13, 214 –15, 256

心理安全，209，212-13，214-15，256

rethinking in, 207 –8

重新思考，207–8

rethinking scorecards in, 218 –19, 218 , 257

重新思考记分卡，218–19，218，257

lectures, active learning vs., 190 –93, 196

讲座、主动学习与……，190–93，196

Lewis, Jerry Lee, 121

刘易斯，杰瑞·李，121

lifelong learning, 11 , 54 , 251 , 253

终身学习，11，54，251，253

charged conversations in, 163 –83

充满激情的对话，163–83

focus on results as obstacle to, 217

注重结果作为障碍，217

teachers and, 185 –203

教师和，185–203

at workplace, 205 –22

在工作场所，205–22

life plans, 225 –43

人生计划，225–43

identity foreclosure and, 232 –33

身份丧失，以及 232–33

periodic checkups on, 235 –37, 257

定期检查，235–37，257

rethinking, 233 , 235 –37, 257

重新思考，233，235–37，257

tunnel vision and, 228 –29

隧道视野，228–29

see also career choices

另见职业选择

listening, 143 –59

聆听，143–59

as expression of respect and care, 159 –60

表达尊重和关心，159–60

influencing and, 155 –60

影响和，155–60

in motivational interviewing, 153

在动机访谈中，153

persuasive, 253

有说服力的，253

reflective, 147

反射式，147

listening circles, 157 –58

聆听圈，157–58

logic, faulty, prosecutor mindset, 102 , 104

逻辑错误，检察官思维模式，102，104

Lord’s Resistance Army, 155 , 156 n, 157

圣主抵抗军，155、156n、157

Lyne, Andrew, 73

莱恩·安德鲁（Lyne, Andrew） 73岁

McCann, Lauren, 196 –97

麦肯，劳伦，196–97

McCarthy, Erin, 185 –87, 189 –90, 203

艾琳·麦卡锡，185–87, 189–90, 203

Maclean, Norman, 5

麦克莱恩，诺曼，5

Madoff, Bernie, 18 , 19

麦道夫，伯尼，18，19

managers:

经理：

feedback and, 213 –14

反馈和，213–14

self-rating of, 39 –40, 39

自我评价，39–40，39

Mann Gulch wildfire, 1 –2, 5 –7

曼恩峡谷野火，1-2，5-7

outmoded assumptions as factor in, 11 –12

过时的假设是影响因素，11–12

mastery, 198

精通，198

Matrix, The (film), 194

黑客帝国（电影），194

meaning, pursuit of, happiness vs., 238 , 240 –41

意义、追求、幸福 vs. 238、240–41

Mean Reviews videos, 214 –15

平均评论视频，214-15

“Mean Tweets,” 214

“卑鄙的推文”，214

measles, 148

麻疹，148

mortality rate of, 144

死亡率，144

resurgence of, 143 –44

复兴，143–44

media:

媒体：

climate change and, 170 –73

气候变化和，170–73

complexification and, 171 –73

复杂化，171–73

medical errors, psychological safety and, 208 –9

医疗失误、心理安全与 208–9

mental flexibility, 2 –3, 8 , 9 –10, 251

心理灵活性，2–3, 8, 9–10, 251

IQ scores vs., 24 –27

智商分数 vs.，24–27

rethinking and, see rethinking

重新思考，参见重新思考

scientist mindset and, 27

科学家心态，27

Mercz, Ursula, 33 –34

梅尔茨，乌尔苏拉，33–34

Michigan, University of, 132

密歇根大学，132

Mill, John Stuart, 241

约翰·斯图尔特·穆勒，241

Miller, Bill, 146 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 156

米勒，比尔，146，152，153，154，156

misfits, see disagreeable people ; pirates

不适应环境的人，讨厌的人；海盗

Mitchell, Edgar, 128

米切尔，埃德加，128

Morrell, Kjirste, forecasting skill of, 68 –69

Morrell，Kjirste，预测技巧，68–69

motivation:

动机：

ineffective approaches in, 150

无效的方法，150

pay and, 114

支付，114

motivational interviewing, 146 –51

动机访谈，146–51

in business, 151 –53

在商业中，151–53

confident humility in, 147

自信谦逊，147

curiosity in, 147 , 157

好奇心，147，157

in everyday life, 149 –51

在日常生活中，149–51

freedom of choice in, 148 , 255

选择自由，148，255

listening in, 153

倾听，153

open-ended questions in, 147 , 148 , 156

开放式问题，147，148，156

resisting righting reflex in, 156

抵抗翻正反射，156

summarizing in, 153

总结一下，153

sustain talk vs. change talk in, 152 –53

维持谈话与改变谈话，152–53

as tool for changing behavior, 148

作为改变行为的工具，148

Mount Stupid, 43 , 44 , 45 , 252

愚蠢山，43，44，45，252

Moyers, Theresa, 152

莫耶斯，特蕾莎，152

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 114 –15

沃尔夫冈·阿马德乌斯·莫扎特，114–15

Murphy, Kate, 156

墨菲，凯特，156

Murray, Henry:

默里·亨利：

beliefs experiment of, 55 –57, 60 , 74 –75

信念实验，55–57，60，74–75

spy assessment test of, 56

间谍评估测试，56

NASA:

美国宇航局：

emerging learning culture at, 221

新兴学习文化，221

lack of psychological safety at, 210 –11

缺乏心理安全感，210-11

overconfidence cycles at, 208

过度自信周期为 208

and Parmitano’s spacesuit malfunction, 205 –7, 211

以及帕米塔诺的宇航服故障，205–7，211

performance culture at, 207 –8, 210 –11, 216 –17

绩效文化，207–8，210–11，216–17

rethinking failures at, 207 –8, 217 , 222

重新思考失败，207–8，217，222

space shuttle disasters of, 207 , 210 –11, 220

航天飞机事故，207，210-11，220

Natarajan, Harish:

纳塔拉詹·哈里什:

debate championships of, 97

辩论锦标赛，97

question-based approach of, 112

基于问题的方法，112

in school subsidy debate, 97 –103, 106 –10, 112

在学校补贴辩论中，97–103，106–10，112

negotiations, 106

谈判，106

adversarial approach vs. search for common ground in, 104 –5

对抗性方法与寻求共同点，104–5

asking questions in, 105 –6

提问，105–6

debates as, 104

辩论，104

focusing on key points in, 105

重点关注，105

humility and curiosity in, 105 –6

谦逊和好奇心，105–6

networks, challenge, see challenge networks

网络，挑战，请参阅挑战网络

New York Times, 248 –49

《纽约时报》，248–49

New York Yankees, Red Sox rivalry with, 122 –24, 126 –27, 127 , 128 , 133 –36

纽约洋基队与红袜队的竞争，122–24、126–27、127、128、133–36

Nomad Health, 241

游牧健康，241

North Carolina, University of, Duke rivalry with, 131

北卡罗来纳大学与杜克大学的竞争，131

Nozick, Robert, 194 –95

诺齐克，罗伯特，194–95

nuance, 117 , 168 , 171 , 174 , 176 , 183

细微差别，117，168，171，174，176，183

Obama, Michelle, 230

奥巴马，米歇尔，230

Ochoa, Ellen, 217 , 220 –21

奥乔亚，艾伦，217，220-221

and Columbia space shuttle disaster, 210 –11

以及哥伦比亚号航天飞机灾难，210-11

Oddsson, Davíð:

奥德森，大卫：

in campaign for Iceland’s presidency, 37 , 41 , 54

冰岛总统竞选，37，41，54

career of, 41

职业生涯，41

and 2008 financial crisis, 36 –37, 45

以及2008年金融危机，36–37，45

Office, The (TV show), 117 –18

办公室（电视节目），117–18

Office of Strategic Services, 56

战略服务办公室，56

Ohio State University, 132 –33

俄亥俄州立大学，132-33

open systems, 241

开放系统，241

identities as, 243

身份，243

opinions, see beliefs and opinions

观点，参见信仰和观点

Originals (Grant), 116

原件（格兰特），116

overconfidence, 92 –93

过度自信，92–93

overconfidence cycles, 28 –29, 28 , 61 , 165 , 188 , 189 , 208 , 233 , 252

过度自信周期，28–29，28，61，165，188，189，208，233，252

overthinking, 235 n

过度思考，235n

overview effect, in astronauts, 128 –29

总观效应，宇航员，128–29

Parmitano, Luca, in spacesuit malfunction, 205 –7, 211

卢卡·帕米塔诺，宇航服故障，205–7, 211

passion, as sign of integrity, 178

激情是正直的标志，178

passion talks, 198

激情演讲，198

pay, motivation and, 114

薪酬、激励和 114

perfectionists, rethinking as difficult for, 195 –96

完美主义者，重新思考困难，195–96

performance cultures, 207 –8, 221

表演文化，207–8，221

best practices and, 216 –17

最佳实践，以及 216–17

learning cultures vs., 209

学习文化与，209

persuasion, beliefs as reinforced by failed attempts at, 144 –45, 146

说服，信念通过失败的尝试得到强化，144–45，146

persuasive listening, 253

说服性倾听，253

Peterson, Jordan, 175

彼得森，乔丹，175

pirates (misfits), 83 , 84 –85, 88 –89

海盗（不合群的人），83、84–85、88–89

Pixar, 82 –83

皮克斯，82–83

pirates at, 83 , 84 –85, 88 –89

海盗，83，84–85，88–89

Planck, Max, 247

普朗克，马克斯，247

Plutarch, 132

普鲁塔克，132

polarization, political, 164

政治两极分化，164

polarizing issues, conversations on, see charged conversations

两极分化的问题，对话，看到激烈的对话

police brutality, rethinking assumptions about, 10

警察暴力，重新思考假设，10

politician mindset, 233 , 248 , 260

政客心态，233，248，260

in collective rethinking, 163 , 169 , 183

在集体反思中，163，169，183

in individual rethinking, 18 –19, 21 , 22 , 22 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 53 , 62 , 80 , 85 –86, 88

在个人反思中，18–19、21、22、22、25、27、28、29、53、62、80、85–86、88

in interpersonal rethinking, 107 , 108 , 145 , 156

在人际反思中，107，108，145，156

preacher mindset, 233 , 248 , 251

传教士心态，233，248，251

in collective rethinking, 165 , 167 , 169 , 175 , 177 , 183 , 192 , 200 , 216

在集体反思中，165、167、169、175、177、183、192、200、216

in individual rethinking, 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 22 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 39 , 60 , 62 , 76 , 80 , 91 , 92

在个人反思中，18、19、20、21、22、22、25、27、28、29、39、60、62、76、80、91、92

in interpersonal rethinking, 102 , 104 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 111 , 117 n, 119 , 124 , 127 , 132 , 141 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 155 , 156 , 157

在人际反思中，102、104、107、108、110、111、117n、119、124、127、132、141、144、145、146、155、156、157

Prectet, Debra Jo, see Project Debater

Prectet，Debra Jo，参见 Project Debater

prejudice, 121 –41

偏见，121–41

conversation as antidote to, 140 –41

对话作为解药，140–41

see also rivalries ; stereotypes

另见竞争；刻板印象

preschool subsidies, debate on, 97 –102, 106 –10, 112

学前教育补贴的辩论，97-102，106-10，112

presidents, U.S., intellectual curiosity and, 27

总统, 美国, 求知欲和, 27

process accountability, best practices vs., 216 –19, 256

流程问责、最佳实践与……，216–19，256

Project Debater, in school subsidy debate, 97 –102, 107 –10, 112

项目辩论者，在学校补贴辩论中，97–102、107–10、112

proof, as enemy of progress, 219

证明，作为进步的敌人，219

prosecutor mindset, 230 , 233 , 248 , 251

检察官心态，230，233，248，251

in collective rethinking, 165 , 167 , 169 , 175 , 177 , 183 , 192 , 200

在集体反思中，165、167、169、175、177、183、192、200

in individual rethinking, 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 39 , 53 , 60 , 62 , 76 , 80 , 91 , 92

在个人反思中，18、19、20、21、22、22、25、26、27、28、29、39、53、60、62、76、80、91、92

in interpersonal rethinking, 102 , 104 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 119 , 124 , 127 , 132 , 141 , 145 , 146 , 155 , 156 , 157

在人际反思中，102、104、107、108、110、111、113、119、124、127、132、141、145、146、155、156、157

psychological safety, 208 –9, 210 , 256

心理安全，208–9，210，256

author’s experiments on, 212 –13

作者的实验，212–13

at Gates Foundation, 212 –13, 214 –15

盖茨基金会，212–13，214–15

“how do you know” question and, 211 –12

“你怎么知道”的问题，211-12

as lacking at NASA, 210 –11

NASA 缺乏，210–11

medical errors and, 208 –9

医疗失误，208-9

process accountability and, 217 –18

流程问责制，以及 217–18

Quakers, clearness committees and, 156 n

贵格会教徒，清洁委员会和，156n

question-based approach:

基于问题的方法：

in debates, 112 –13

在辩论中，112–13

encouraging rethinking through, 253 –54

鼓励重新思考，253–54

in scientist mindset, 25 –26

科学家心态，25–26

questions:

问题：

counterfactual, 137 –39, 254

反事实，137–39，254

as encouraged by self-doubt, 53 –54

受到自我怀疑的鼓舞，53–54

“how do you know,” 211 –12

“你怎么知道”，211-12

“how” vs. “why,” 254

“如何”与“为什么”，254

open-ended, 147 , 148 , 156

开放式，147，148，156

skilled negotiators’ use of, 105 –6

熟练的谈判者使用，105-6

“what do you want to be,” 225 –26, 230 , 231 , 232

“你想成为什么样的人”，第225–26页，第230页，第231页，第232页

racial injustice, rethinking assumptions about, 10

种族不平等，重新思考假设，10

racism, 10 , 121 –22, 139 –41, 181 –83

种族主义，10，121-22，139-41，181-83

Rackham, Neil, 104 , 105

拉克姆，尼尔，104，105

Rawls, John, 178

罗尔斯，约翰，178

reasoning, flawed:

推理有缺陷：

prosecuting, 110 , 111

起诉，110，111

prosecutor mindset, 21 , 22 , 22 , 60 , 76 , 80 , 91 , 92

检察官心态，21，22，22，60，76，80，91，92

reflective listening, 147

反思性倾听，147

relationship conflict, 78 –80, 79

关系冲突，78–80，79

as barrier to rethinking, 80

作为重新思考的障碍，80

task conflict and, 90 , 91 –93

任务冲突和，90，91-93

relationships, rethinking in, 236 –37

关系，重新思考，236–37

rethinking, 3 –4

重新思考，3-4

encouraging others to adopt, see interpersonal rethinking

鼓励他人采用，看到人际关系的重新思考

in individuals, see individual rethinking

在个人中，看到个人的反思

in lifelong learning, see collective rethinking

在终身学习中，看到集体反思

making time for, 257

腾出时间，257

as mindset, 16

作为心态，16

negative responses to, 30

负面回应，30

process of, 246 –50

过程，246–50

see also unlearning

另请参阅“忘却”

rethinking cycle, 27 , 28 , 28 , 45 , 67 , 83 , 92 , 112 –13, 137 , 140 , 147 , 158 , 165 , 171 , 187 , 188 , 208 , 234 , 261

反思周期，27、28、45、67、83、92、112–13、137、140、147、158、165、171、187、188、208、234、261

rethinking scorecards, 218 –19, 218 , 257

重新思考记分卡，218–19，218，257

revisions and drafts, in learning process, 199 –203, 256

学习过程中的修订和草稿，199–203，256

righting reflex, 156

翻正反射，156

Ripley, Amanda, 163 , 165

里普利，阿曼达，163，165

rituals, sports rivalries as, 133

仪式、体育竞争等，133

rivalries:

竞争对手：

animosity in, 124 –25

敌意，124–25

in business, 124

在商业领域，124

group polarization in, 128

群体极化，128

humanizing the other side in, 130 –31

人性化的另一面，130–31

in sports, see sports rivalries

在体育运动中，参见体育竞争

see also prejudice ; stereotypes

另请参阅偏见；刻板印象

Rock, Chris, 230

洛克，克里斯，230

Rollnick, Stephen, 146 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 156

罗尔尼克，斯蒂芬，146, 152, 153, 154, 156

Roosevelt, Franklin D., trial-and-error method of, 248 –50

罗斯福，富兰克林·D，试错法，248–50

Sandler, Adam, 238 –39

桑德勒，亚当，238–39

Saturday Night Live (TV show), 238 –39

周六夜现场（电视节目），238–39

Schulz, Kathryn, 67

舒尔茨，凯瑟琳，67岁

science:

科学：

peer-review process in, 86

同行评审过程，86

unlearning in, 188 –90

忘却，188–90

scientific method, 20 , 199 , 247 –48

科学方法，20，199，247-48

skepticism in, 169 –70

怀疑论，169–70

“scientist,” coining of term, 247

“科学家”一词的创造，247

scientist mindset, 23 , 53 , 62 , 66 –67, 74 , 76 , 92 , 93 , 116 , 145 , 186 , 249 –50

科学家心态，23、53、62、66–67、74、76、92、93、116、145、186、249–50

as actively questioning beliefs and assumptions, 25 –26

积极质疑信仰和假设，25–26

author’s adoption of, 26 –27

作者采纳，26–27

career change and, 235

职业转变，以及 235

caveats and contingencies in, 173 –74, 176 , 255

警告和意外情况，173–74，176，255

in charged conversations, 183

在激烈的对话中，183

and consistent narrative vs. accurate record, 174 –75

一致的叙述与准确的记录，174–75

in debates, 102 –6

在辩论中，102–6

entrepreneurs and, 20 –22, 21 , 251

企业家和，20–22，21，251

humility as characteristic of, 28

谦逊的特点，28

rethinking as central to, 19 –20, 247 –48, 251

重新思考是核心，19–20，247–48，251

Scotland, career choices in, 233 n

苏格兰，职业选择，233n

Scott, Michael (char.), 118

斯科特，迈克尔（角色），118

second opinions, 18

第二意见，18

Seinfeld, Jerry, 133

宋飞传，杰瑞，133

Seinfeld (TV show), 68 , 118

宋飞传（电视剧），68，118

Seles, Monica, 124 n

塞莱斯，莫妮卡，124n

self, sense of, 8 , 9 , 12

自我意识，8，9，12

commonality in, 129

共通性，129

detaching beliefs and opinions from, 62 , 63 –64, 69 –70, 76 , 251 –52

脱离信仰和观点，62、63–64、69–70、76、251–52

identity foreclosure and, 230

身份丧失抵押品赎回权，以及 230

as open system, 243

作为开放系统，243

present vs. past, 62 –63, 69 , 76 , 251

现在与过去，62–63、69、76、251

rethinking as challenge to, 4 , 7 , 42

重新思考作为挑战，4，7，42

tribes and, 125 –26

部落和，125–26

self-awareness, 39 , 48

自我意识，39，48

self-deprecation:

自嘲：

gender and, 72 n

性别和，72n

self-confidence and, 72

自信，72

self-doubt:

自我怀疑：

asking questions as encouraged by, 53 –54

鼓励提问，53–54

benefits of, 49 –54, 252

好处，49–54，252

humility vs., 46

谦逊 vs.，46

see also impostor syndrome

另见冒名顶替综合症

self-esteem, evolution of, 241

自尊的演变，241

Seneca, 35

塞内卡，35岁

sexism, 10

性别歧视，10

Shandell, Marissa, 234 –35

珊德尔，玛丽莎，234–35

Shaw, George Bernard, 15

萧伯纳，乔治·伯纳德，15岁

Silver, Nate, 66

西尔弗，内特，66岁

simplification:

简化：

internet and, 171

互联网和 171

media and, 171

媒体和，171

resistance to, see complexification

抵抗，见络合

skepticism, in scientific method, 169 –70

怀疑论，在科学方法中，169–70

skeptics, deniers vs., 169

怀疑论者、否认者 vs. 169

smartphone revolution, 16 , 22 , 23 , 31

智能手机革命，16、22、23、31

Smith, Will, 73

史密斯，威尔，73岁

social networks, polarizing issues and, 164 –65

社会网络、两极分化问题以及 164–65

space, Earth as seen from, 128 –29

太空，从太空看地球，128–29

sports, stock market influence of, 126

体育、股市影响，126

sports rivalries, 122 –28

体育竞争，122–28

author’s experiments on, 131 –32, 133 –36

作者的实验，131–32，133–36

group polarization in, 128

群体极化，128

as rituals, 133

作为仪式，133

stereotyping in, 127

刻板印象，127

status quo bias, 194 n

现状偏见，194n

stereotypes, 121 –41

刻板印象，121–41

animosity and, 127

敌意和 127

as barrier to rethinking, 124

作为重新思考的障碍，124

conversation as antidote to, 140 –41

对话作为解药，140–41

group polarization and, 127 –28

群体极化，127–28

groups and, 139

团体和，139

of groups vs. individuals, 131

群体与个人，131

intergroup contact and, 139

群体间接触，以及 139

in Israel-Palestine conflict, 130

在巴以冲突中，130

racist, 121 –22, 139 –41

种族主义者，121–22，139–41

rethinking timeline for, 135

重新思考时间表，135

shaky foundations of, 139

摇摇欲坠的基础，139

in sports rivalries, 127

在体育竞争中，127

tribes and, 136 n

部落和，136n

see also prejudice ; rivalries

另请参阅偏见；竞争

stereotypes, arbitrariness of, 133 –34

刻板印象、任意性、133–34

counterfactual thinking as destabilizing, 134 –40

反事实思维具有破坏性，134–40

stereotyping, IQ scores and, 24 –25

刻板印象、智商分数和 24–25

stock market, influence of sports matches on, 126

股票市场，体育比赛的影响，126

Storm King Mountain wildfire, 6 –7

风暴王山野火，6-7

stress:

压力：

learned responses to, 5 –7

习得性回应，5-7

Murray’s experiment on, 55 –58, 60 , 74

Murray 的实验，55–58, 60, 74

Strohminger, Nina, 40 n

斯特罗明格，尼娜，40n

summarizing, in motivational interviewing, 153

总结一下，在动机访谈中，153

task conflict, 78 –80, 79

任务冲突，78–80, 79

disagreeable people and, 83 , 84

令人不快的人，83，84

as encouraged by disagreeable people, 90

受到不友善的人的鼓励，90

encouragement of, 88

鼓励，88

politician mindset and, 85 –86

政治家心态，85–86

relationship conflict and, 90 , 91 –93

关系冲突和，90，91-93

rethinking as fostered by, 80 , 253

反思，80，253

Taylor, Breonna, 10

泰勒，布伦娜，10岁

teachers, teaching:

教师、教学：

Berger as, 198 –203

Berger as，198–203

Grant as, 195 –98

Grant as，195–98

lecturing vs. active learning in, 190 –93, 196

讲课与主动学习，190–93，196

lifelong learning and, 185 –203

终身学习，185–203

McCarthy as, 185 –87, 189 –90, 203

麦卡锡，185–87，189–90，203

Nozick as, 194 –95

诺齐克，194–95

textbooks and, 185 –87

教科书和，185–87

unlearning and, 188 –90

忘却学习，188–90

technology, exponential expansion of, 17

技术，指数扩张，17

TED talks, 192 , 195 , 196

TED演讲，192，195，196

teenagers, see kids

青少年，看看孩子

test-taking, rethinking and, 3 –4

考试、反思和 3-4

Tetlock, Phil, 18 , 67

泰特洛克，菲尔，18岁，67岁

Tewfik, Basima, 50 , 51 n

特维菲克，巴西玛，50，51n

textbooks, 185 –87

教科书，185–87

Theseus paradox, 132 –33

忒修斯悖论，132–33

Time, 36 –37

《时间》，36–37

Tómasdóttir, Halla, 35 –36

托马斯多蒂尔，哈拉，35–36

in campaign for Iceland’s presidency, 36 , 49 , 53 –54

冰岛总统竞选，第 36、49、53-54 页

impostor syndrome and, 36 , 38 , 49 , 52 –54

冒名顶替综合症，36、38、49、52–54

totalitarian ego, 59 –61, 73 , 74

极权主义的自我，59–61，73，74

Toy Story (film), 82

《玩具总动员》（电影），82

tribes:

部落：

identity and, 126

身份和 126

stereotyping and, 136 n

刻板印象和，136n

Trump, Donald, in 2016 election, 66 –67, 69 –71, 70 , 71

特朗普，唐纳德，2016 年大选，66–67，69–71，70，71

tunnel vision, 235 n

隧道视野，235n

life choices and, 228 –29

人生选择，228–29

Tussing, Danielle, 52

塔辛，丹妮尔，52岁

2008 financial crisis, 35 –36, 45

2008年金融危机，35–36，45

Uganda, civil strife in, 155 –57, 159

乌干达，内乱，155–57，159

uncertainty, 53

不确定性，53

unlearning, 2 , 12 , 188 –90

忘却，2，12，188–90

kids and, 189 –90, 256

孩子们，189–90，256

in stress situations, 5 –7

在压力情况下，5-7

see also rethinking

另见重新思考

Urban, Tim, 45

厄本·蒂姆（Urban, Tim） 45岁

vaccination:

疫苗接种：

autism mistakenly linked to, 144 , 158 –59

自闭症被错误地归因于，144，158–59

unfounded fear of, 143 –44

毫无根据的恐惧，143–44

vaccine whisperers, 145 –49, 158 –59

疫苗传闻者，145–49，158–59

Voldemort (char.), 146 –47

伏地魔（角色），146–47

Vonnegut, Kurt, 205

库尔特·冯内古特，205

Wales, career choices in, 233 n

威尔士，职业选择，233n

Walker, Candice, 242 –43

沃克，坎迪斯，242–43

Walker, John, 87 –88, 89

沃克，约翰，87–88，89

Weick, Karl, 7

维克，卡尔，7岁

Wharton School, 9

沃顿商学院，9

Mean Reviews video at, 214

平均评论视频，214

“what do you want to be” question, 225 –26, 230 , 231 , 232

“你想成为什么”问题，225–26，230，231，232

WhatsApp, 24

WhatsApp，24

white supremacists, Davis’s encounters with, 121 –22, 139 –41, 151

白人至上主义者，戴维斯的遭遇，121–22，139–41，151

Whitman, Walt, 165

惠特曼，沃尔特，165

Wilde, Oscar, 77

王尔德，奥斯卡，77岁

wildfires, firefighters’ behavior in, 1 –2, 5 –7

野火，消防员的行为，1-2，5-7

workplace:

工作场所：

best practices in, 216 –17

最佳实践，216–17

grades as poor predictor of performance in, 195

成绩不能很好地预测学生的表现，195

learning cultures at, 205 –22

学习文化，205–22

psychological safety and, see psychological safety

心理安全，参见心理安全

World War II, 56

第二次世界大战，56

Wright, Katharine, 91

赖特，凯瑟琳，91岁

Wright, Wilbur and Orville, 77 , 81

莱特、威尔伯和奥维尔，77岁，81岁

as built-in challenge network, 89 –90

作为内置挑战网络，89–90

in conflict over propeller, 91 –93

螺旋桨冲突，91–93

Wrzesniewski, Amy, 242

艾米·沃泽斯涅夫斯基（Amy Wrzesniewski） 242

X (company), 86

X（公司），86

Young Men and Fire (Maclean), 5

《年轻人与火》（麦克林），5

Zuckerberg, Mark, 8

扎克伯格，马克，8岁

ADAM GRANT is an organizational psychologist at Wharton, where he has been the top-rated professor for seven straight years. He is one of TED's most popular speakers, his books have sold millions of copies, his talks have been viewed more than 25 million times, and his podcast WorkLife with Adam Grant has topped the charts. His pioneering research has inspired people to rethink fundamental assumptions about motivation, generosity, and creativity. He has been recognized as one of the world's 10 most influential management thinkers and Fortune 's 40 under 40, and has received distinguished scientific achievement awards from the American Psychological Association and the National Science Foundation. Adam received his B.A. from Harvard and his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and he is a former Junior Olympic springboard diver. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and their three children.

亚当·格兰特是沃顿商学院的组织心理学家，曾连续七年荣登该校顶级教授榜。他是TED最受欢迎的演讲者之一，他的著作销量达数百万册，他的演讲被观看超过2500万次，他的播客节目“与亚当·格兰特共事的职场生活”（WorkLife with Adam Grant）也名列前茅。他的开创性研究启发人们重新思考关于动机、慷慨和创造力的根本假设。他被公认为全球十大最具影响力的管理思想家之一，并入选《财富》杂志“40位40岁以下杰出人物”，并获得美国心理学会和美国国家科学基金会颁发的杰出科学成就奖。亚当拥有哈佛大学学士学位和密歇根大学博士学位，曾是青少年奥运会跳板跳水运动员。他与妻子和三个孩子居住在费城。

ALSO BY ADAM GRANT

亚当·格兰特作品

CONTENTS

内容